Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Employment

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what extra employment from the surrounding areas in the construction industry is likely from a decision by Her Majesty's Government to go ahead with the Dee Barrage and an expansion of the Shotton Steel Works, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): There would certainly be opportunities for increased employment, but it would be premature to attempt any detailed forecast at this stage.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that both these schemes are of great interest not only to North Wales but to the whole of the Merseyside area, and that if a decision could be made rapidly it would be a great booster of morale throughout the North-West?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that these schemes are of widespread interest. I can assure him that there will be no undue delay in reaching a decision but, as he will appreciate, consultations with various bodies and authorities are necessary.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman support major expansion at the Shotton Steelworks? Will he come off the fence and say "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman talks about major expansion, and I take it that he means expansion further than the development scheme which is already taking place. That is a matter for the British Steel Corporation, and I have no doubt that the Corporation will take into account the claims of Shotton.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will state the names of the organisations he has recently consulted concerning unemployment amongst youths in Wales ; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have had no specific recent discussions relating solely to unemployment among young people. Youth employment prospects cannot be divorced from more general employment considerations and these figure prominently in many of my discussions with various organisations.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that that complacent reply will annoy everyone in Wales? Is he further aware that this subject has now become one of urgency in that some thousands of our young people will be leaving school this month and large numbers of them will be added to the unemployed? What proposals has he for helping the employment of young people in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not complacent and that youth employment is a matter of great concern to us all. Improved employment prospects for young people will come about only with renewed economic expansion, and the Government have already taken steps to bring that about.

Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the answers given by him and his colleagues throughout the last year have been to the effect that all employment opportunities will be improved by competition and the Government's policies, so that the statement which we shall hear shortly is an acknowledgement of the failure of him and his right hon. Friends to provide the job opportunities?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As he is an objective man, the hon. Gentleman will


appreciate that we inherited an extremely difficult economic situation. I am happy to say that the measures introduced by the Government are now taking effect, and I hope that they will lead to a reversal of the trend that we inherited.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will convene a conference of young Welsh people who have left school in July 1971, or were entitled to leave school in July, 1971, to discuss the prospects for economic development.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am keen to keep in touch with young people and with those guiding their careers, and I shall be addressing the annual meeting of the Institute of Careers Officers in September. But I do not think that a conference on the lines suggested would be helpful.

Mr. Kinnock: As there are very few economic prospects, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he recognise that the Institute of Careers Officers and the children leaving school are not the same people? The important point is to try to convey to youngsters that there is some future in Wales. Does not the Secretary of State consider that there is an emergency employment problem and that special encouragement for employment should be provided for young people in Wales because we are losing a generation?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As I have said, I am obviously concerned about the unemployment of young people. It is an aspect of the wider problem of employment opportunities in Wales generally. The Government, as announcements last week will have made clear, are taking steps to improve the position.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Has the Secretary of State any specific plan whatsoever for enhancing the employment prospects of young people in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As I have said, the employment of young people in Wales is conditioned by employment opportunities generally. Announcements have been made recently about infrastructure and about the three-year payback on investment allowances. This shows that the Government are anxious to improve the situation.

Rubber and Plastic Foam (Fire Hazards)

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider issuing guidance to health and education authorities in Wales over the fire hazards presented by the use of furniture containing rubber or plastic foam.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): This matter will continue to be kept under review, and health and education authorities will be informed of any significant developments.

Mr. Jones: Does not the Minister agree that there is growing evidence from fire service authorities, from trade unions involved in the manufacture of this furniture, and from newspaper and private tests that there is a real fire hazard in using furniture containing foam and plastics? Does he not further agree that it is absolutely necessary to ensure that no school or hospital in Wales uses such furniture?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My Department maintains close contact with the Fire Department in the Home Office on matters concerning fire hazards in schools and hospitals. Foam mattresses are normally obtained by hospitals through contracts made by the Department of Health and Social Security. These are now of plastic foam only ; latex foam ones are no longer bought.

Water Supplies (Revenue)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total income, accruing to local authorities in Wales, from the reservoirs in Wales which supply water to statutory water undertakers.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: This information is not readily available.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I understand that, but does not my hon. Friend agree that the amount of money coming in this way to local authorities is much less than it would be if they were in a position to sell their water to outside bodies?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend may well be right on that, but to make inquiries from 1,300 reservoir holders


and from 46 holders of other reservoirs which were constructed before 1931 would be a considerable operation from our point of view.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Do not many of these water undertakings make a very substantial profit from the sale of water, and is it not reasonable that the area from which such water is drawn should have a share in that prosperity?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, indeed, and some of the areas referred to by the hon. Gentleman benefit considerably, some more than others.

Roads (Expenditure)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the approximate estimated expenditure on building and improving principal roads in Wales during 1971–72 ; and how such expenditure will compare with the expenditure of each of the previous two years.

Mr. Peter Thomas: £6·4 million compared with £5·2 million in 1969–70 and a provisional figure of £6 million in 1970–71.

Mr. Gower: As road building of this kind may be deemed to constitute an important part of the infrastructure, which we talk about a lot these days, will my right hon. and learned Friend say to what extent his latest projects in road development are related to the industrial needs of Wales and, in particular, of the Welsh development area?

Mr. Peter Thomas: So far as principal roads are concerned, I am anxious that local authorities should put forward schemes for improvement in the principal road preparation list, and I have already asked them to do so.

Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be ever mindful of the truly appalling state of the A55, and give it the highest priority?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware that considerable improvements are necessary on the A55. I am anxious that it should be a dual carriageway all the way along as soon as possible, and, as my hon. Friend knows, I have already announced some' far-reaching plans for the A55.

Housing Improvement Grants

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take in order to put an end to the differential rates of housing improvement grant now available for property inside or outside the Welsh development area.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The increased grants for house improvements, which will become available under the Housing Bill introduced on 23rd June, apply only in local government areas wholly or partly within development or intermediate areas. There are no plans to extend these grants to other areas.

Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this decision further aggravates the anomalies which prevail in Flintshire? Is he further aware that every Government announcement about additional incentives for development and intermediate areas further exaggerates these anomalies? Does he appreciate that I shall go on nagging him until he nags his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to do something about the situation?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I suggest that my hon. Friend's point on whether or not the area should be a development area is another question. The main aim of this Bill is to mount a sharp attack on poor housing and drab surroundings in our development and intermediate areas by bringing forward work which otherwise might not be done for many years. Its purpose is also to create further employment and to make areas more attractive to incoming industry.

St. Lawrence Hospital, Chepstow

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to transfer the St. Lawrence Hospital, Chepstow, to Cardiff ; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot give a firm date. The transfer of the plastic surgery and burns unit is being planned together with the reorganisation of hospital services in the Cardiff area.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the uncertainty about their future is undermining the


morale of people engaged in this hospital? Although I in no way assume that the Secretary of State has yet paid a visit to this hospital, I should like to ask whether he is able to announce a firm decision so that people can make arrangements accordingly.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With regard to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am glad to be able to say that in the last year I have visited over 20 hospitals in Wales. With regard to his other point, this is part of a complex reorganisation of hospital services in the Cardiff area ; the planning and execution of the necessary work inevitably will take some time.

Mr. George Thomas: May I press the Minister : when does he expect to make an announcement about the transfer of this hospital? This matter affects the people in the whole of South Wales, and everybody has a right to know.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, I am happy to be pressed by the right hon. Gentleman because this is a most important matter, but I cannot be more specific about the date as this depends on the completion of adaptations of the Cardiff Royal Infirmary, which will house the burns unit, and the Prince of Wales Orthopaedic Hospital, which will accommodate the plastic surgery unit.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great pride in Chepstow over the St. Lawrence Hospital, and that many of the staff, built up over the years, with great experience of this specialist and most important field of medicine, will probably be unable to make the transition to Cardiff? Is he also aware, with regard to staffing at the top level, that consultants at the hospital are below the establishment necessary, and are grossly overworked, and that a speedy decision is vital? Should not the future of St. Lawrence Hospital be given very serious consideration?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks ; I know his interest in this matter, and I accept a great deal of what he says. However, it is a fact that the present unit is not well situated. Plastic and burns surgery is a highly specialised matter, as my hon. Friend said, and needs to be provided at

a regional centre. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give this matter every possible urgent assistance.

Ministerial Broadcast

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make a Ministerial broadcast on B.B.C. Wales and Harlech Television.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have no immediate plans to make a Ministerial broadcast. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I give many interviews on both sound and T.V. channels in Wales and hope to continue to do so.

Mr. McBride: Is the Secretary of State aware that such a forecast on the Common Market could give the Welsh people facts and figures from the officials of the Welsh Office who visited the E.E.C. headquarters in Brussels, facts which have never been revealed to this House? Does he accept that Wales is seriously worried about the matter of investment and the consequent lack of employment and reduction in the standard of living if we join the Common Market? Does he not agree that his failure to give these facts is a clear abdication of his responsibility to the Welsh people?

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir ; I would not agree. I have already expressed the view that entry into an enlarged European Economic Community would give Britain new economic opportunities and substantial advantages and that Wales would share in these ; it also would enable us to deal more effectively with regional development, and, therefore, Wales should benefit

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will not such a Ministerial broadcast give the Secretary of State the opportunity to explain to the 1,600 steel workers who have been made redundant in Wales in the last 12 months, and the many hundreds more who are to be made redundant in the next two years about the job opportunities that may exist for them in Western Germany if we are unfortunate enough to join the Common Market?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am sure the hon. Gentleman was pleased and relieved to hear the views expressed by Lord Melchett and the other B.S.C. leaders about the advantages to the British steel industry if we join an enlarged Community.

Welsh Office (Architects)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified architects dealing with school affairs are employed in the Welsh Office.

Mr. Peter Thomas: One senior architect.

Mr. Jones: Is this work force sufficient to meet the needs of the schools in Wales? What is the average length of time between the taking of a decision to modify or extend a school and undertaking the work?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is considered sufficient at the moment. The senior architect not only maintains close liaison with professional colleagues in the Department of Education and Science but also has the support of a specialist team of Her Majesty's Inspectors who work closely with local authorities. I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot give an answer about the average length of time taken.

Pembroke County Hospital, Haverfordwest (Gas Gangrene)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outbreak of gas gangrene at the Pembroke County Hospital, Haverfordwest.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Two cases of gas gangrene have occurred recently. One patient died, and the operating theatre concerned has been temporarily closed. For the time being emergency operations are being transferred to the West Wales General Hospital at Glangwili and a temporary theatre is being erected at the Pembroke County War Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I should like to express my sympathy to the relatives of the unfortunate person concerned. Could my hon. Friend take the opportunity of congratulating those responsible for the prompt action they have taken and the doctors who are working under such difficult conditions? Is he able to assure me that every possible action will be taken to get the operating theatre back into action?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I can certainly say "Yes" to the last part of my hon.

Friend's question. I agree that great praise should be given to those responsible. I myself saw the conditions to which he referred when I last visited Haverfordwest.

Public Works Programme

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase expenditure on public works in Wales up to March 1973.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 15th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).—[Vol. 821, c. 160.]

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Secretary of State not realise that hon. Members on this side of the House find it inexcusable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unlike his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland, was not prepared to come to the House to make a statement on this matter and make himself available for questions to be put to him from hon. Members on both sides of the House with Welsh interests? Will he give an undertaking not to make such an important statement in the form of a Written Answer in future? What effect will the new expenditure have on the chronic unemployment situation in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The projects proposed for Wales will account for about 14 per cent. of the total sum which was announced by my right hon. Friend, which is a very fair percentage. My officials will now see officials of local authorities and the hospitals and schools to ascertain what projects can be accelerated and put into action quickly. We shall then be in a better position to be able to say what effect it will have on the unemployment situation in Wales?

Mr. Gower: Is not the percentage my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned somewhat higher than would be required to accord with the proportion of people in the United Kingdom and in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The 14 per cent. has to be compared with the 13·7 per cent. in Wales of all assisted areas employment, and, perhaps more significant, the Welsh share of assisted areas unemployment is just over 12 per cent.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that we note that on a number of occasions he does not make a statement as do his right hon. Friends when these matters affect his Department? Would it not be better if he submitted himself to questioning, as other Ministers do when statements are made to the House, so that Welsh affairs could also be discussed in proper conditions? Further, is he aware that this effort to make up for the errors of the past, welcome as it is, does not go far enough?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is a matter of the convenience of the House whether or not separate statements are to be made for Wales when a joint statement is made on England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that I certainly submit myself to plenty of questioning from right hon. and hon. Members not only in the Chamber but also in the Welsh Grand Committee.
As for other measures, the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the major step which was taken to increase still further the attraction of development areas by amending the free depreciation arrangements through an Amendment of the Finance Bill on 7th July, giving a higher carry-back period and involving refunds of corporation tax which have already been paid. I am sure that he will pay tribute to that change, and welcome it.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much each local authority in Wales has allocated in its financial estimates for the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The information is not available.

Mr. Roderick: Is the Minister of State aware that many local authorities have not made any allowance at all for expenditure to implement the Act? Is he not disturbed by that fact? Will he tell us what action he proposes to take to encourage these local authorities so that we may have the Act implemented, or does he believe, like his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that every hon. Member should look after his own constituency?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I understand that in the hon. Member's constituency both Breconshire County Council and Radnorshire County Council are providing services under Section 2 of the Act, and are planning to develop them further.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the dilatoriness of his Government has led large numbers of people throughout the country and, in particular, in Wales to feel that the disabled are being deliberately deprived of the benefits they could receive if the Bill were fully implemented, and that many people in Wales are categorising the Government's action as being on a par with that in the shabby Bill which withdraws school milk from children?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The present Government fully accept the need to improve the services available to the chronically sick and disabled and, as is shown in the White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 4578, have made additional resources available for the next four years for the development of these and other health and personal social services, and the recent rate support grant Orders allowed for appreciable development of these services over the next two years.

Secretary of State (Newspapers)

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of theWestern Mailand theLiverpool Daily Posthis private office receives every day.

Mr. Peter Thomas: One copy of each.

Mr. Jones: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads both copies with interest. Is he aware that on 8th July the chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc claimed that but for the Labour Government's investment grant the £50 million aluminium smelter would never have come to Anglesey? Is he further aware that a C.B.I. survey has shown that the withdrawal of investment grants has done a great deal of damage to Wales? Will he not admit that he has created havoc and chaos in the Welsh economy?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I would certainly not admit the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I assure him that I read these papers with interest,


and find that occasionally they are extremely complimentary. As to the point about investment incentives, I take it that the hon. Gentleman also will be pleased by last week's Amendment of the Finance Bill, which gives a very good new differential incentive to development areas.

European Economic Community

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish an account of the discussions concerning regional policies which his officials have now had in Brussels with representatives of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. On 28th June, in answer to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Jeffrey Thomas), I outlined the points covered in the discussions, but the details of such discussions must remain confidential.—[Vol. 820, c. 3–5.]

Mr. Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer is entirely predictable, because this is one of the topics which the Government are desperately anxious to sweep under the carpet. As past experience in Wales and in the United Kingdom has been that capital investment always congregates in the most prosperous areas and that labour is forced to follow, can the Secretary of State say how entry into the European Economic Community will retard rather than accelerate that trend?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the European Economic Community capital investment has certainly not been concentrated in the populated areas. The nationalised industries of Italy, for instance, are under statutory obligation to allocate 40 per cent. of their new investment to development areas. The hon. Gentleman, if he studies the different regional policies in the European Economic Community, will appreciate that Britain has quite an important part to play in formulating any common regional policy at which the European Economic Community may in future arrive.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that unless Britain has a much larger domestic market we shall not have the global resources to divert to the implementation of this regional policy?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the people of Wales are intensely dissatisfied not only because there has not been a separate Welsh White Paper on the Common Market but because not even a separate paragraph or a separate sentence dealing with Wales appears in the White Paper? Does he realise that they will be even more perturbed to hear that he does not intend even to take part in the four-day debate in order to explain his assessment of the impact on Wales, and undergo examination of his assessment?

Mr. Peter Thomas: We followed the example set by our predecessors. Our predecessor Government, of which I believe the hon. Gentleman was a member, came to the conclusion that this matter must be viewed on a United Kingdom basis, and that it would be wrong to try to assess the effect on individual regions. On a United Kingdom basis, we have come to the same conclusion that our predecessors came to.

Mr. George Thomas: Does not the Secretary of State agree that Wales has a right to know at this stage the details of how her economy will be affected? Wales, we accept, was dealt with as part of the United Kingdom, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must now have at his disposal what the previous Administration could not have at their disposal, the detail of how the agreement reached by his right hon. and learned Friend at Brussels will affect the differing industries in the Principality.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is certainly possible to give an assessment of the effect on differing industries. For instance, Mr. Ezra, of the National Coal Board, has said that the coal industry will benefit. [Interruption.] Lord Melchett, of the Steel Board, has said that the steel industry will benefit. The National Farmers' Union is in agreement with the arrangements that have been made for hill farming, and agrees that we shall be able to give continuing assistance to maintain the incomes of hill farmers. All those can be assessed, but they are individual things, and it would be wrong to try to assess what may be the growth of industry generally in any part of the country. One


has to take the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to seek to pay an official visit to the European Economic Community Commission in the near future.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have no immediate plans to visit Brussels, but will be ready to do so should it appear to be necessary.

Mr. Morgan: On the issue of Wales and the Common Market, does not the Secretary of State accept that he has married the maximum confidence with the minimum knowledge? Would he accept that the people of Wales would have greater confidence in his competence and his honesty if he were prepared to make a detailed and comprehensive study of these matters so vital to the life of Wales? The Welsh people will not be impressed that he is willing to subordinate the interests of Welsh people in this matter to saving the face of the Government.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Welsh Council agreed at its last meeting to investigate the terms and to report. We maintain, as did our predecessors, that Wales will share fully in the benefits that will accrue to the United Kingdom from membership of the Community. The increased growth which will be stimulated in the United Kingdom as a result of entry, allied with an effective regional policy, will be of special benefit to Wales.

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in view of the possibility of the United Kingdom becoming a member of the European Economic Community, and the current formulation within the Community of a policy on investment incentives, he will ask the Welsh Council to undertake a study of the different forms of investment incentives available within the existing Community countries and the effect of their implementation upon Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: At its last meeting the Welsh Council decided to consider the White Paper "The United Kingdom and the European Communities"—Cmnd. 4715—and the possible implications for Wales of the United Kingdom becoming a member of the Community. The Council hopes to complete this study by October. It is for the Council to decide on the scope of its study.

Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. I remind him that this report should be available for consideration over the summer. It is rather late to produce it in October just before the vote is taken in Parliament. As the Prime Minister indicated in the House a few weeks ago that if the E.E.C. Commission recommended a system of investment grants as opposed to investment allowances he would be prepared possibly to revert to that system, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether we can conclude that the Government are at last persuaded that grants are superior to investment allowances?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly not. The Government are not persuaded of that at all. As the hon. Gentleman knows, each member of the Community pursues its own regional policy. The members of the Six have not yet reached any harmonisation of their policies, but they hope to do so. If after discussion, in which Britain will play its part, it is decided that there should be a change, certainly Britain would accept the change.

Mr. Alec Jones: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the report of the study which is being undertaken by the Welsh Council into Wales and the E.E.C. will be made public and available to Members of the House?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is for the Council to decide how it wants to handle the outcome of its study. It may decide to report its views to me with a request that its report should be published. I will consider whatever request is put to me.

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect will Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community have upon the employment of civil servants in the Welsh Office.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is too soon to give any precise estimate.

Mr. Probert: We have just heard about the creation of jobs. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an authoritative estimate has stated that between 4,000 and 5,000 extra jobs for British civil servants will be created if we enter the European Economic Community, and that these jobs will be created not in Wales or Scotland or in the North-East or the South-East but in Brussels, which will be highly welcome to the Belgian people but wholly unwelcome to the people in Wales? How does this accord with the Tory policy to reduce civil servants?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department said in the House on 14th July, 1971.

Mr. George Thomas: May we therefore take it that once again the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer is that he does not know, as with his answers to other Questions?

Mr. Peter Thomas: My answer is that if Parliament decides that we should enter the European Economic Community there will be some switching of staff to new tasks but that does not mean that an increase in the overall number of civil servants is inevitable. We are on the look out for economies in staff in all areas of the Civil Service.

Dee Barrage

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when a decision will now be made on the multi-purpose Dee Barrage scheme.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The views of the local planning authorities and others are being sought on the complex of proposals for a crossing. It is too early to say when a decision will be reached.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this scheme will give a good return in the social, recreational and transport aspects? As it has been discussed for years, if not decades, is it not time that a decision was reached?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the engineering consultants' report has been published only re-

cently and that deals with very diverse matters such as road communications, water services, fisheries, recreational amenities, and industrial, shopping and residential development. It is important that this report should be properly considered. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not drag our feet on this matter.

Coastal Pollution

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received about the effects of the disposal of sewage and industrial effluent on the Welsh coast of the Bristol Channel ; and what new policies he will adopt to lessen such disposal in the future.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Apart from representations forwarded by my hon. Friend on behalf of a constituent, we have received fewer than half a dozen letters. The Working Party on Sewage Disposal recently recommended a review of measures for controlling the disposal of waste to coastal waters. This is under consideration, and a Government announcement will be made soon.

Mr. Gower: In view of the widespread recognition of the importance of the preservation of the purity of the environment, will my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend give extra attention to this matter because it is one of some controversy, as they must be aware?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what my hon. Friend says. With my right hon. and learned Friend, I will certainly continue to take an active interest in the matter.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would not the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) had full opportunity to put those points of view, if he is so concerned about these matters, in the debate a fortnight ago on the Bristol West Dock scheme?

Rural Bus Services

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in view of the continued run-down of the rural bus services of Wales, he will commission an emergency report on the situation.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Welsh Council is about to undertake a detailed study


of rural transport problems. It will be reporting its conclusions to me.

Mr. Jones: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the insidious dangers posed by the heartless slashing and trimming of these services? What special and determined action will he take on behalf of villagers in isolated communities who do not possess cars?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Parliament has made available the necessary powers in Section 34 of the Transport Act, 1968. It is up to local councils to make full use of them.

Mr. William Edwards: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the major problems about rural transport is the fantastic cost of travelling on the buses at present, and that in about six months' time there will be no need to subsidise some of these services because passengers will not be travelling on them because they cannot afford to do so?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I accept that cost has been quite a serious factor. I note that when services were withdrawn in Pembrokeshire some of the services were taken up by local operators, and they appear to be running the services without any subvention.

Cefn Hengoed School, Swansea

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the hindering factor in the present phase of construction at Cefn Hengoed School, Swansea, due to be completed in September 1971 ; what will now be the new completion date ; what steps he is taking to assist Swansea Local Education Authority in this regard ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that the original completion date of September 1971 was extended by the Swansea Council by four months to compensate for delays outside the control of the contractors.
The latest completion date is April 1972 but, following the Council's strong representations, it is hoped that the contractors will be able to improve on that date by at least two months.

Mr. McBride: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply.

My constituents are becoming seriously perturbed that the date of completion of the school is being delayed. Will the Secretary of State assist Swansea City Council as far as he is able, so that pupils from the catchment area will be offered the opportunity, as early as possible, to continue their education in this very fine school?

Mr. Peter Thomas: As the hon. Member will appreciate, my Office is not responsible in any way for the delay. That is a matter entirely for Swansea Council and the contractors, between whom there is a binding contract.

Forestry

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of acres of land in Wales planted by the Forestry Commission and the number planted by private owners ; and what are the corresponding figures for the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: At 31st March, 1971, the Forestry Commission had 312,000 acres of plantations in Wales ; the estimated area of productive privately-owned woodlands was 141,000 acres. In the year ended 31st March, 1971, the Forestry Commission and the private sector planted 6,200 acres and 3,700 acres respectively.

Mr. Roderick: Is not the Minister of State concerned about the increasing proportion of forests that are in private ownership due to taxation benefit? Is not the time now ripe for altering the arrangements so that private foresters come under the same obligations as the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: In answering this Question I must declare an interest. I am not aware that the Commission's planning programme has been significantly affected by the activities of the private groups or of other private owners.

Councillors (Surcharge)

Mr. Alan Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many councillors were surcharged in Wales in 1970.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir.

Mr. Williams: Is not the Minister of State aware that by the end of this year he could face a massive rebellion by Welsh local authorities on the question of free school milk for children? Is he further aware that in Swansea the councillors have voted funds available for the continued provision of free school milk and that those councillors are apparently willing to face the risk of surcharge, distraint of property, and even imprisonment, rather than see our Welsh children denied the free school milk which we consider necessary?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is the duty of the District Auditor under Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933, to disallow every item of account which is contrary to law.

Free School Milk

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue a circular to local authorities in Wales listing the powers under which they are entitled to use rate income for the provision of free milk in primary schools.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: No. The Government's policy in relation to the provision of milk in schools has been fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the debates on the Education (Milk) Bill.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State pointed out that there is no provision in the Education (Milk) Bill which affects the provision—Section 6(1)—of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963, which allows an authority to incur expenditure in the interests of its area or of the inhabitants of its area—the so-called penny rate? Will the hon. Gentleman now make clear to Welsh authorities whether if they continue to supply free milk it does or does not come within the ambit of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1963?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is for the local authority in any particular case to decide in the first instance whether it has powers to proceed in this way. My right hon. and learned Friend is not empowered to interpret the Statute any more than I am.

Mr. Probert: What duties will head teachers and teachers be called upon to

undertake if the Education (Milk) Bill becomes law in October? If they have none and authorities employ ancillary workers, and as there is no Money Resolution to the Bill, will local authorities be acting illegally?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee which sat upstairs discussing this matter. He will realise that this matter was considered in very great depth.

Mr. Probert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out, in clarification of the hon. Gentleman's statement, that I was not a member of that Committee?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I had in mind another Committee which sits upstairs and which we all know and of which the hon. Gentleman is Chairman. Therefore, I apologise to him for making that mistake. Local education authorities will be advised in due course by circular on the implementation of the arrangements for school milk.

Mineral Resources

Mr. William Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ask the Welsh Economic Council to undertake a study of mining potential in Wales ; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will ask the Welsh Council to conduct an inquiry and produce a report on the potential for mineral exploitation in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Welsh Council's report on "A Strategy for Rural Wales" included a section on the mineral resources of Wales. The Council recognised that the exploitation of the mineral resources of Wales could give rise to major conflicts of interests. It urged, therefore, that the planning and other authorities concerned should use their powers to balance the need to conserve the natural beauty of Wales and the economic advantages of mineral development.

Mr. William Edwards: Does the Secretary of State accept that two things have happened since that report was published? First, the Environment Ministers


have talked about strengthening the planning powers of the national parks where these minerals lie. Second, the Department of Trade and Industry has made £50 million available in cash grants to assist mining ventures in these areas. In view of this conflict, is it not time for the Council to look again at mining potential in national parks and to formulate a policy which will enable the Government to participate in the development of any mining potential which may exist?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The views of the Welsh Council still obtain. The important thing is to hold the balance between the various interests concerned.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many mining experts consider that the £50 million mineral development incentive scheme referred to by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) is a matter of immense importance to the Welsh economy and should do a great deal to stimulate industrial investment and job opportunities, particularly in areas where they are most needed because of the lack of other industries?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes ; I am aware that that might well be the case. The Government's decision was based on the need to encourage mining companies to prove our mineral resources so that they could be used to the best advantage. The full details of the scheme have not yet been worked out, but I want to emphasise to those who support this kind of activity and those who oppose it that the scheme will in no way affect the operation of the planning controls under the Planning Act.

Infrastructure Expenditure

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs likely to be created by the increased sums of money made available for infrastructure work in Wales.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect his Department estimates the £14 million infrastructure expenditure announced by the Government will have on the Welsh economy.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his

estimate of the number of new jobs which will be created in Wales in consequence of the Government's plan to combat unemployment.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The purpose of the increased expenditure on infrastructure projects in Wales announced last week is to strengthen the economy and improve employment opportunities. The detailed work involving discussions with local authorities and other interested organisations is now proceeding and it would be premature to attempt any more specific estimates in terms of employment or other factors.

Mr. John: Is it not remarkable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proud of a measure when he now confesses that he has no idea of the number of jobs involved? Is his statement not just strictly pious verbiage, and is it not the fact that he has no idea what he is doing in spending this £14 million?

Mr. Peter Thomas: What I have said is that I cannot go into detail. All I know is that £14 million extra capital allocation is to be made in Wales in order to improve the infrastructure, to create employment opportunities and to make development areas more attractive to incoming industry. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have welcomed it.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that last November, in answering a Question on this subject, he declined to carry out such a programme? Therefore, is there not an admission of failure in the announcement last week?
Secondly, with the taking away of investment grants amounting to £40 million and with unemployment up by 30 per cent. and 11,000 more people out of work, in which way will this £14 million balance that up?

Mr. Peter Thomas: All I can say is that the investment grants certainly do not show great results in Wales. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in the place of investment grants has been given a unique incentive in development areas of free depreciation, and many other measures have been introduced by this Government. The package as a whole is considered to be a very attractive inducement to industry.

Mr. Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollect the syrupy promise that he made to the Welsh people on taking office that he would improve the quality of life in Wales? Has he calculated the number of jobs which would be necessary to reduce unemployment in Wales to the United Kingdom average, and did he have that figure in mind when he pleaded the case within the Cabinet for a bigger share of this money—if he pleaded at all?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I have made announcements about roads and about schools in Wales, and this is an added announcement which shows that more money is being spent in Wales which will bring benefit to Wales and improve the quality of life there.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce a Bill to bring the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions under his control and make it independent of the police, and to make the office responsible, save in the case of trivial and routine offences, for decisions to prosecute and for the conduct of prosecutions.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): Under the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 to 1908, and the Prosecution of Offences Regulations, 1946, the Director of Public Prosecutions is already subject to my directions ; he is independent of the police ; and under the Acts and Regulations he is responsible for instituting and conducting prosecutions in cases of importance and difficulty. I do not consider that there is at present any reason for changing the existing system.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the considerable disquiet in the legal profession which has been expressed by the organisation Justice about police officers conducting fairly important prosecutions, and the reference to the need for a new branch of the Director of Public Prosecutions to be established, in accordance with the last annual report of Justice?

The Attorney-General: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Important and difficult cases are conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Office is continually recommending to police authorities that they should employ prosecuting solicitors, but, in fact, the Director of Public Prosecutions at present has the duty, and undertakes it, of conducting difficult and important prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS (CONVEYANCING CHARGES)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Attorney General why he has not yet announced what action he proposes to take concerning Report No. 164 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Command Paper No. 4624, with regard to the reduction of conveyancing charges by solicitors.

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member's Question on 28th June.—[Vol. 820, c. 24–5.]

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Attorney-General aware that after being in possession of this report for almost four months, his failure to take action on it has become a scandal? Can he now say categorically when he intends to take action on this report, and will he assure the House that he will carry out the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and make this closed shop reduce its charges?

The Attorney-General: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this report was received on 1st April. It had to be considered with the Monopolies Report, and various professionals were invited to submit representations. Those representations are being studied. I can tell the hon. Gentleman no more at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORNOGRAPHIC MAGAZINES

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Attorney-General what action was taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the matter of two pornographic magazines of which copies were sent to him by the hon. Member for Chigwell.

The Attorney-General: A prosecution in respect of one of these magazines is


pending. The Director has decided that criminal proceedings in respect of the other magazine would not be justified, and I agree with his view.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without mentioning and, therefore, advertising this magazine, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that those for whom I speak in this matter in my constituency will be grateful that the case of one of the magazines is to be submitted to the judgment of the courts?

Oral Answers to Questions — 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL (ABORTION)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Attorney-General what has been the result of the investigation he asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to make into the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy and abortion of a 12-year-old girl.

The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has considered the police report of their investigations. In his opinion, with which I agree, there is no evidence that any criminal offence was committed in the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Lipton: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, which will satisfy the overwhelming majority of sensible people who have, so far as they have been able, studied the circumstances of this unfortunate case. In fact, there never was any case for criminal prosecution in the existing circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COURT (ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to establish an administrative division of the High Court.

The Attorney-General: This suggestion is one of a number now being studied by the Government in their search for ways of safeguarding more effectively and equitably the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen.

Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his answer will be acclaimed provided, of course, that there follows some action on the part of his Department? Would he give

some indication of when he expects some decision to be made on this issue?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Law Commission is at present studying improvements in the procedure with regard to prerogative orders. Study is also being made of the introduction of an ombudsman for the National Health Service and also improved arrangements for investigating citizens' complaints in local government. The Government are certainly mindful of the importance of these matters.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the very useful and valuable report of Justice on this subject, and, if so, will he undertake that it will be fully taken into account in this review?

The Attorney-General: I have read the report ; it is under study, and I will so undertake.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and Learned Friend recall that there have been two authoritative reports by the Society of Conservative Lawyers proposing solutions to this problem and that they cover a number of areas, and that a solution to this matter is now urgently awaited?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of those very useful reports to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred. They have been taken very actively into account in this study which is being undertaken by the Government.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we have been waiting for a long time now in the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner to hear what view is held on the question of that Committee extending its powers to the National Health Service? Could he say when we are likely to have the reply?

The Attorney-General: I cannot myself give my hon. Friend any information on that, save to say that these matters are under consideration with reference to an ombudsman for the National Health Service and for local government. I shall see that her point is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

ECONOMIC SITUATION

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

ECONOMIC REVIEW

The review of the economic situation and prospects which always takes place at this time of the year has now been completed, and I have considered it against the background of the two main problems which face the country—high unemployment and continuing inflation.

FORECAST OF OUTPUT

The House will recall that, in my Budget statement, I said that I expected that, between the first half of this year and the first half of 1972, output would increase by about 3 per cent. In the light of the review which has just been completed, and assuming no further policy changes, I would now expect the increase in output to be a little greater than 3 per cent. This latest forecast does not take account of the additional expenditure on infrastructure in the development and intermediate areas announced last week by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and the Environment.

THE BASE LEVEL

The House will recall also that my Budget proposals were based on the assumption that in the first half of this year national output would be lower than in the second half of 1970. The estimate in the Financial Statement and Budget Report was for a fall of about ½ per cent. between the second half of 1970 and the first half of 1971. From information which has become available since the Budget, it is now clear that, in spite of the signs of a recovery in the second quarter, taking the first half of 1971 as a whole, the level of output was probably rather more than 1 per cent. below the level assumed at the time of the Budget.

UNEMPLOYMENT

This low level of activity in the economy, combined with the fact that wage inflation has been causing employers to lay off labour in order to cut costs, has resulted in a level of unemployment which everyone agrees is too high. Even with a rate of growth of rather more than 3 per cent., the additional margin of

slack which, as I have said, developed in the first half of this year would not be appreciably diminished by the first half of next year. The level of unemployment in the first half of next year would, therefore, in the absence of any policy changes, be higher than was expected at the time of the Budget.

INVESTMENT

There is a further factor which is relevant to any assessment of prospects at this time, and that is that industrial investment would be likely, on present indications, and in the absence of any policy changes, to continue on a downward trend for a time.

THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Turning to the balance of payments, I said at the time of the Budget that I expected another sizeable surplus on current account in 1971. In the Financial Statement and Budget Report I forecast an increase in the volume of exports ; and the House will have noted that the recent trade figures show a renewed increase in the volume of exports after a static period since early in 1970.

The latest figures indicate that in the first half of this year the current account was in surplus, for those six months alone, by about £300 million seasonally adjusted, that is to say, at an annual rate of around £600 million. This is a considerably larger surplus than many had expected.

DEBT

Bearing in mind the strength of the external position, the House should know that I have decided to make a further reduction in the country's remaining debt to the International Monetary Fund. Fund borrowing is intended to be temporary, and it is right to repay it, and so to reconstitute our position in the Fund, when the state of our reserves makes this possible. The House will recall that in the Budget I announced repayments of short and medium-term debt of £778 million. That left a total of £683 million owing to the I.M.F., of which £266 million was in respect of the June, 1968, drawing and £417 million in respect of the 1969–70 drawings.

The £266 million has since been reduced to £256 million as a result of sterling drawings from the Fund by other


countries. An arrangement had been made whereby repayments could have been spread over next year, if necessary, but I have decided that there is no need to delay the repayment until then, and the £256 million will, therefore, be repaid next month.

This will mean that we shall have reduced by £1,044 million the short and medium-term official debt which we inherited in June, 1970, leaving still to be repaid to the I.M.F. the remaining £417 million, incurred in 1969–70, and which begins to fall due in June next year.

INFLATION

To return to the home economy, the need to reduce the rate of inflation remains paramount. We have made some progress. Until the beginning of this year, the rate of increase of money earnings compared with a year earlier was going up. Since then, although there have been fluctuations from month to month, the trend has levelled off.

C.B.I. INITIATIVE

But, in addition to the success we have had in moderating the excessive rise in earnings, there is now another and new development to be taken into account, and that is the very important initiative taken by the C.B.I. at the meeting of its Council last week.

From the Government's point of view, the more favourable outlook for prices which has been created by that initiative has important implications for economic policy. If prices rise markedly less, then the possibility is opened up of moderating the rate of wage inflation, which in turn would ease the pressure on prices. This prospect improves the outlook for our international competitive position.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRY PRICES

The C.B.I. naturally expects that, if its proposal for price restraint is to be implemented by the private sector, the same should apply to the nationalised industries. The major nationalised industries, as members of the Confederation, were told of the C.B.I.'s proposals, and my right hon. Friends and I have discussed the proposals with the chairmen of those industries. The Government expressed the view that the nationalised industries should be prepared to match the performance of the private sector

members of the C.B.I. by accepting the same restraint on prices on the same conditions. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the chairmen of all the major nationalised industries have said that they intend to co-operate in this way.

This will in itself considerably reinforce the effect of the C.B.I. move, because not only do the prices of the products of the nationalised industries affect the pockets of ordinary people, and therefore have a bearing on wage negotiations ; they also have a considerable effect on industrial costs. The limitation on the price increases of nationalised industries should therefore materially help private industry to hold to the C.B.I.'s objective.

I am sure that the whole House will applaud the initiative of the C.B.I. and the response of the nationalised industries.

The chairmen of the nationalised industries have been informed that their investment programmes will not be affected as a consequence of this price restraint, that Government control over the industries will not on that account be increased, and that the industries will be able to borrow from the National Loans Fund to finance investment programmes which, in the absence of the price restraint, would have been financed out of their own resources. The detailed financial and other implications are now being discussed by the Ministers concerned with the chairmen of the nationalised industries.

The C.B.I. itself has said that, as a corollary of its proposals, it will be even more essential for companies to resist inflationary pay claims. Clearly this is vitally important.

THE NEED FOR REFLATION

As a result of my review of the economic situation and after taking into account all the relevant factors, including the new situation created by the C.B.I. proposals, the conclusion that I have reached is that it is now right to take action to provide some further stimulus to demand.

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES

As I have said, the indications all present are that, in the absence of new action, industrial investment would be


likely to continue on a downward trend for a time. I have therefore come to the conclusion that there should be some additional and direct encouragement to investment but that this encouragement should be mainly of a temporary kind.

I propose to increase to 80 per cent. the rate of first year allowance on all capital expenditure on plant and machinery which now qualifies for an allowance of 60 per cent. As a deliberate incentive to early investment, this increase will apply only to expenditure incurred after today and before 1st August, 1973. Second, I propose to end the discrimination against the service industries in the present free depreciation rules by allowing free depreciation for immobile plant and machinery in use in service industries in the development areas. This additional relief will also take effect from tomorrow, but will not be subject to any time limit. These two changes together will benefit industry by about £40 million in the financial year 1972–73 and about £150 million in 1973–74. The necessary legislation will be in next year's Finance Bill.

These additional incentives are considerable, but I have always taken the view that investment intentions are in the main governed by the assessment which businessmen make of the prospects for demand. Investment will therefore also be revived by two further proposals.

HIRE PURCHASE

First, the level of hire purchase and similar controls. The Government have not yet taken decisions on the recommendations of the Crowther Committee, but I have concluded that the right course in the present circumstances is to remove all the existing terms control restrictions on hire purchase, credit sale and rental agreements. I am not of course referring to provisions designed to protect the consumer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is making the necessary Orders, which will take effect at midnight tonight.

This move will stimulate considerable additional demand and has the added advantage that the direct effect on demand is greatest in the early months.

This change will mean that all those who provide consumer credit will now compete on an equal footing.

As for the future of consumer credit arrangements, I made clear in my Budget speech that the control of consumer credit and the general methods of quantitative monetary control go together. The consultations with the banks and other institutions concerned are now in progress. In due course, in the light of the Crowther Committee's recommendations and our experience of the new methods for general credit control, we shall have to consider the arrangements for consumer credit in the wider context.

PURCHASE TAX

It has been widely suggested that the rates of purchase tax should be reduced to the maximum extent permitted by the regulator, which is 10 per cent.

I have concluded that there should be reductions in purchase tax, but that these reductions should be greater than could be made by the use of the regulator. The changes will therefore be made by Order under the Purchase Tax Act, 1963.

As from midnight tonight, all four rates will be reduced by almost twice the amount permitted by the regulator—by two-elevenths to be precise. The 55 per cent. rate will thus be cut to 45 per cent. ; the 36⅔ per cent. rate to 30 per cent. ; the 22 per cent. rate to 18 per cent. ; and the 13¾ per cent. rate to 11¼ per cent.

Purchase tax is collected in arrears, so the cost will be about £110 million in the current financial year and about £235 million in a full year.

This is the first time that the rates of purchase tax have been reduced since 1963, and it is the biggest reduction of purchase tax since 1953. It will mean price cuts over a wide range of goods.

TOTAL EFFECT

Together with the cuts in taxation which I announced last autumn and in the Budget, the total reductions in taxation in this financial year will now amount to about £1,100 million, and in 1972–73 to over £1,400 million.

In addition, there are the new measures to assist the development and intermediate areas which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and the Environment announced last week and which involve additional expenditure of about £100 million, to be


incurred in this financial year and the next. These measures will mean a substantial further injection of demand into the economy.

The removal of hire-purchase terms control will also, as I have said, add substantially to demand.

I have also made allowance for the effects on aggregate demand of price restraint by both the private sector and the nationalised industries and of the lower level of money pay increases which should accompany this new situation.

My predecessors have always found that one of the most difficult forecasts to make is the change in national output resulting from a variety of new factors, and any such estimate must inevitably be subject to a considerable margin of error. Taking into account all the factors, I now expect the increase in national output between the first halves of 1971 and 1972 to be 4 to 4½ per cent.

CONCLUSION

We now have the prospect of a slower rise in prices and at the same time a faster growth of demand. Managements can now look forward with the greater assurance which they rightly need to embark upon the new investment which the country needs.

The Trades Union Congress has on many occasions argued both for action to restrain the rise in prices as a basis for wage moderation, and for a faster growth of demand. At the N.E.D.C. meeting earlier this month it stressed how difficult it was for it to persuade its members to moderate wage claims while the rate of increase of prices was so high. I hope therefore that, in the light of the measures which I have announced and the new possibilities opened up by the C.B.I. initiative, the T.U.C. will consider how best it can make a positive contribution.

We now have a unique opportunity to make a decisive break-through in the fight against inflation, and this is the time to grasp it.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I begin by congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on rising like a somewhat belated phoenix from the ashes of the flames which have devoured his Budget judgment? May I also congratulate him on having made such a remarkably large and welcome repayment of international

debt on the basis of what his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regarded a year ago as "a rapidly deteriorating" balance of payments situation?
The right hon. Gentleman has announced far-reaching changes. Some of them are in line with what we urged upon him in the censure debate on 28th June——

Mr. Cormack: Then why did you not cheer?

Mr. Jenkins: I very much welcome the Chancellor's belated conversion in some matters to what we have urged upon him. What we greatly deplore—and this is quite clear on his own words—are the manifestly wasted months which have been allowed to go by. There are other measures which we will want to study and to give a more considered view about in the debate tomorrow, as indeed on the package as a whole. In the meantime, I ask the right hon. Gentleman three specific questions and one general question.
First, he says that he expects gross domestic product to rise as fast as projected in his Budget statement, although he admits that the basis for the start is now lower. Can he tell us, on top of this, what he expects the latest increase of personal consumption—5·3 per cent. in his Budget statement—now to be from the first half of 1971 to the first half of 1972? Secondly, what effect does he expect this to have on the level of unemployment in the middle of winter next year? Thirdly, has he any changes to announce in his money supply policy, in so far as there is one, in connection with what he has outlined? Finally, does he now believe that he has settled the course of the economy for at least a few months, or does he expect to correct his judgment again in the autumn?

Mr. Barber: I will deal with the last question first. I have always taken the view—I think that any sensible Chancellor would—that if one considers at any time during the course of the year that it is desirable and in the interests of the economy to take action, one should take action. I seem to recall that the right hon. Gentleman himself on at least one occasion took action in the course of the year, but not quite of the character I have announced today. I said that I


expect output over the year, from the first half of this year to the first half of next year, to grow by 4 to 4½ per cent. That is the forecast I have made, compared with the expectation at the time of the Budget of a growth in output of about 3 per cent.
For reasons which the right hon. Gentleman understands, he did not have an advance copy of my statement, and I think that perhaps he misunderstood what I said at one point. I said that at the time of the Budget the figure was about 3 per cent. The latest forecast without any changes would be a little over 3 per cent. Now the figure is 4 to 4½ per cent. for the same period. I expect personal consumption to increase further in the course of the year than was predicted at the time of the Budget. I do not propose, because it has not been customary other than at the time of the Budget, to give the detailed forecast of the various components. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
I turn now to the questions about unemployment and the expected growth of output. The level of unemployment, after allowing for seasonal factors, should stop rising, perhaps after a couple of months or so, and before very long it should start to fall. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the balance of payments and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said in a speech that the balance of payments position was deteriorating. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what my right hon. Friend said was perfectly correct and was borne out by the figures.
Finally, there is the question of my Budget judgment. I have explained in my statement—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I was right to keep it concise since we are to have a debate tomorrow—the various factors which caused me to take the action I have announced ; I will elaborate on them in the debate.
The fact is that the latest information shows that although the increase in activity between the first half of this year and the first half of next year may well be somewhat higher than forecast at the time of the Budget, even without these changes, the actual level of output in the

first half of the year was below what we were then expecting. In addition, I have obviously taken into account the recent unemployment figures, the better prospects for inflation as a result of the policy of de-escalation, and the C.B.I. initiative. When the right hon. Gentleman was in office he was never satisfied unless he was putting taxes up. It ill-becomes him now to complain because we do not cut them quickly enough.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I will leave aside argumentative points, although I would be happy to deal with them, because I think it would be unfair to take the time of the House today when we are to have a debate on this matter tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention money supply. Can he give us his view on that?
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, it was not possible for me to have an advance copy of his statement in view of its budgetary nature, but I did not misunderstand what he said. On the contrary, I think he has misunderstood my question about personal consumption. In the Budget Statement, he had a conclusion, leading from a number of factors, that G.D.P. would increase by 3·1 per cent. He has put that up to between 4 and 4½ per cent., as a result of measures largely affecting personal consumption, which was then predicted to increase by 5·3 per cent. It is essential, if we are to be properly informed, that he should tell us about personal consumption, which is a crucial factor which he must know if he has worked out this aspect. As a result of what he has worked out, what is the increase estimated over the 5·3 per cent. in the red book at the time of the Budget?

Mr. Barber: Although my proposals will increase the public sector's borrowing requirement, the package as a whole should not require a substantially faster growth of money supply. The faster growth of output which I now expect should be offset by a slower rise in prices. There will, of course, be a need to ensure that the increased borrowing requirement is financed mainly in a way which does not entail substantial expansion of reserve assets at the banks, but so far the authorities have been very successful this year in selling gilt-edged and National Savings to the public.
I replied to the right hon. Gentleman about personal consumption. He knows perfectly well that it is not the normal practice other than at Budget time to give the components, and I do not propose to depart from it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can I have the assistance of the House? There is to be another statement, in which right hon. and hon. Members are interested, and there are other items of business, including the debate on housing, for which I have a long list of speakers. In view of the fact that we are to have a debate tomorrow on the economic situation, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will curtail their questioning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his immensely encouraging statement, which his own prudent stewardship of the last year has made possible.

Mr. Faulds: Make him a P.P.S.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Good idea.
What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the additional demand which will be generated in the present year by his firm action over the hire purchase restrictions, and what will be the effect on the index of retail prices of the reductions in purchase tax?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will recall, from his own days at the Treasury, that it has not been the practice either at the time of the Budget or at any other time to split up, as it were, the demand factors of various measures which have been announced. But together—and this probably gives him the broad answer—they will mean an increase in output over the year from an expected 3 per cent. to 4 to 4½ per cent.
I think I am right in saying that the effect on retail prices of the cuts in purchase tax is expected to be about ¾ per cent.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the British Steel Corporation has just emerged from a period of severe price restraint? How

does he expect it to achieve solvency if it is to be subjected to further price restraint? As a matter of equity, or at least compensation, will he consider waiving this policy in respect of steel for at least six months?

Mr. Barber: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should exempt the steel industry from the price restraint which is being accepted by the other nationalised industries. I would not dream of doing that. Together with my right hon. Friends, I have seen the chairman of the British Steel Corporation and the chairmen of the other major industries in the nationalised sector, and they understood perfectly well that the national interest called for this action.

Mr. Thorpe: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the frankness with which he has told us that his April Budget unamended would lead to higher unemployment and a continued downward trend in investment and a lower balance of payments surplus than prophesied. We are delighted that he has been blown back on course. I have three questions. First, can he go a little further with his prophecy about unemployment? Does he expect that the figure will be below 500,000 by the end of the year? Is that the Government's target?
Secondly, as for industrial investment—he knows that I have an interest which I now declare—does he intend that leasing will go on all fours for fiscal purposes with hire purchase?
Thirdly, he said very little about savings. In view of inflation, has he thought of a protected savings scheme which would give corrected values to offset the effects of inflation, a scheme of the kind tried in other countries with marked success?

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman knows that specific forecasts of unemployment figures are not given, and I have given the best estimate I can of the situation as I see it developing.
If the right hon. Gentleman has any specific questions about industrial investment, particularly leasing, I should like to consider them. I have made an announcement about hire purchase. The Orders will be out tonight and they will cover the three areas I have mentioned. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the


record of savings has been extremely good and very encouraging over the past year, and I have no reason to doubt that the level of savings will continue to be high in the months ahead.

Mr. Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his measures will do much to encourage the level of industrial investment and as such will be widely welcomed? However, would he tell the House, as he expects output to increase between the second half of this year and the first half of next year by 4 to 4½ per cent., what is his estimate of the rate of growth of productive potential over the same period?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about the proposals for encouraging industrial investment. I should like to deal with this subject at greater length tomorrow, but I should have thought that the rate of growth of productive potential would be about 3 per cent. so that the growth in the rate of output will exceed the growth of productive potential by 1 per cent., or a little more. That is highly desirable, and indeed necessary, in order to take up the slack which, as I have said, is now apparent and which came about in the first half of the year.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his third Budget in less than nine months against a background of an inherited £600 million balance of payments surplus. I recall that in the debate on the second Budget I told cheering hon. Members opposite that it would not look the same in a few weeks' time, and that was seven weeks before Bromsgrove. As I understand it from the latter part of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman is hoping that these measures will help to lead to some restraint in wage settlements. Would he not agree that it is incumbent upon him, if that is his hope, to withdraw the Housing White Paper which the House will be debating this afternoon?

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that my right hon. Friend's proposals, which are to be the subject of a debate this afternoon, are not in the nature of an ordinary increase in prices resulting from an inflationary situation, but are the result of a deliberate and long-overdue change in

housing policy. What is more, they will be accompanied by a more generous system of rent rebates for those who need them, including for the first time tenants in private unfurnished accommodation.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was only six weeks ago that the independent National Institute was forecasting a balance of payments surplus on current account for the whole of the year of only £300 million, and today I have said that in the first six months of the year alone we expect a surplus in balance of payments current account of about £300 million, which is an annual rate of £600 million.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The National Institute was not elected to this House and a year ago we forecast a continuing surplus of £600 million. It was the Prime Minister who said that we had passed the peak and that it would fall.

Mr. Barber: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do better than that, he will soon become the day before yesterday's man.

Sir J. Rodgers: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise with what satisfaction his statement has been received today, particularly his statement about the repayment of international debt, most of it incurred by the Labour Party? Secondly, what will be the cost to the Exchequer—[HON. MEMBERS : "Reading."]—of the increase in investment allowances and the increase in free depreciation for service industries in development areas and the stimulation of consumer demand by the hire-purchase changes?

Mr. Barber: The changes in capital allowances will cost about £40 million in 1972–73 and the cost in 1973–74 will be about £150 million. The purchase tax changes will cost £110 million in this financial year. As I mentioned, purchase tax is paid in arrear and in a full year the cost of the purchase tax changes will amount to £235 million.

Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the initiative of the C.B.I. in the matter of the prices policy. However, is it not astonishing that the Government had to produce a mini-Budget depending upon this piece of private enterprise, namely, the C.B.I., coming to some agreement on prices and incomes when that should have been the


responsibility of the Government? Why did they not carry out some sort of policy which would have led to this kind of expansion earlier? Why have they wasted these few months? With all the advice open to them and when it was obvious that this kind of prices and incomes policy should be agreed between the unions and the Government in the spring of this year, why have the Government wasted all these months? What effect will these measures have on unemployment?

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman will look at my statement, he will see that the C.B.I. initiative was one of the factors I took into account. Perhaps I can say this to the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. I wish that they had used the words which Mr. Feather used when he was asked to comment on the C.B.I. initiative. He said, "It shows a constructive response to the policy which the T.U.C. has been advocating for some time."

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be getting very much into the realm of argument but I hope that the House will be with me if I call only two more supplementaries.

Mr. Ridsdale: Could I ask the Chancellor what steps the T.U.C. has undertaken, other than what Mr. Victor Feather has said, to underline what must be the basis of his economic policy, and that is the establishment of a voluntary prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Barber: It is for the trade unions to decide what action they should now take. I am sure they recognise that the measures which have been taken by the Government and the action of the C.B.I. create a new situation in which there is now a much better opportunity of bringing inflation under control, reducing unemployment and achieving a faster growth in living standards.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider the accusation he has made against wage earners who, according to him, have taken more from the economy than that to which they are entitled, particularly since he has now announced that there is a need to increase

consumer demand? Will he also consider this in the light of figures from his own Department showing that wage earners, in net terms, are now worse off than they were 12 months ago?

Mr. Barber: I would have thought that what matters now is that the prospect of lower price increases over the next 12 months should encourage management and unions to negotiate more moderate pay increases.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (INFORMATION)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a statement about the provision of information to the public about entry into the European Economic Community.
The House will recall that the decision to make application for membership of the Community was approved by the House by a majority of 426 in 1967. Therefore both the previous Government which decided to make this application and the present Government have felt it right to put out information at important stages in the negotiations.
The Labour Government issued their White Papers and this Government issued a White Paper at the conclusion of the main issues in the negotiations.
There have been widespread demands for information to the public. In response to these as was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28th June and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 5th July, the Government decided to issue along with the main White Paper a free short version which covers the same ground.
So far as Parliament was concerned the Government decided exceptionally to make 12 free copies of the main White Paper available to each Member and this decision has been widely welcomed in the House.
The Labour Government issued a series of free Factsheets in 1967. The present Government have also issued a series of 11 Factsheets on Britain and Europe on generally similar lines.
Before deciding to take this course the Government naturally considered the relevant precedents for making available information on important public issues, including a number of cases from the time of the previous Administration.
The Government concluded that there was ample justification from past practice for giving the country clearly and simply the information which has been so widely demanded and for reporting to the nation the outcome of the negotiations which had been initiated by a decision of the House with an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Peart: Is the Lord President aware that what he has said about White Papers and Factsheets is not the issue here? Is he aware that we are dealing here with a highly contentious propaganda document which has been issued free by the Post Office? That is the issue. There is no precedent for this. I should like the Lord President to state the facts on this. So far he has refused to do so. Is he aware that when I held the selfsame position as he holds the then Administration were not allowed to publish summaries of a White Paper not approved by Parliament? Is he further aware that the only policy that has been approved by Parliament is to negotiate entry? Even a White Paper has not been approved by the House.

Mr. Whitelaw: As to the issuing of various documents, it is reasonable to point out that in 1967 the Department of Economic Affairs issued a pamphlet described as "Upswing". There was an article entitled, "Towards Europe". It asked "Why?" and the following sentence——

Mr. Harold Wilson: What date?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was 1967.

Mr. Wilson: What date?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have not got the exact date. I have the pamphlet here. It was published in 1967 by the Department of Economic Affairs. I will find out the date and let the right hon. Gentleman know. Perhaps it will help if I read the next sentence which says :
Britain has applied to join the Common Market. Why? What benefits would it bring? If we join customs officers in the Common Market countries would not put charges on our goods, our goods would then be cheaper over

there and sell better. These countries are getting richer and"—
[Interruption.]—
they can be good customers for the things we make. Everybody in Britain would benefit.

Mr. Peart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered my main question? [Interruption.] He has not given a date. The White Paper published by this Government about the terms of entry has not been approved by Parliament. The Lord President has not got the date of the document.

Mr. Whitelaw: I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I will get the date. It was after the application was made. As for his other point, I would point out to the House that when the Factsheet was issued, or "Upswing" as it was called by the Department of Economic Affairs, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was a junior Minister in the Department. There was also a short version of the Geddes Report on the shipbuilding industry, Cmnd. 2937, published in March, 1966, when the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was President of the Board of Trade. It was sent to all in the shipbuilding industry, but the resultant Shipbuilding Industry Act was not enacted until 1967. The policy had not been approved by Parliament.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman, by saying that the document in question, which was issued free of charge——

Hon. Members: By you.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, after the approval by Parliament of the application. It stems from that date. This White Paper has nothing to do with the application—[Interruption.] This White Paper includes the Government's conclusions on entry and is propagandist in tone. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman once said—in September, 1969, when he was manoeuvring for Daily Express support—that our application was a disaster, so he has nothing to say on this. [Interruption.] Yes, you did ; do not deny it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House. There will be plenty of opportunities on other days for ventilating these matters.

Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a rule of government, confirmed by a former head of the Information Service in The Times this morning and followed by all previous Governments, that no White Paper involving controversy can be issued free unless it has been approved by the House? Is he aware that when the previous Government wished to publish a free version of the superannuation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we wanted to publish a free version of the superannuation proposals we were told that the rules were absolutely fixed and that no Government could do it unless the document had been approved by Parliament? This White Paper has not been approved by Parliament. Was the right hon. Gentleman warned by the authorities, as we were warned, that this is against the rules, or has he or the Government changed the rules so that there is a different rule for the present Government from that which operated when any previous Labour or Conservative Government were in office?

Mr. Whitelaw: I reject that absolutely. We considered all the precedents, and in the circumstances of the case we believe that we are right. [HON. MEMBERS : "Answer."] I should have thought that I had clearly answered the question. I stand by what I have said. I have explained exactly what the position is.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, other than the most partisan, the people of the country really want to know what the issue is, that the greatest demand made to most Members is for information about the White Paper and that the Government were absolutely right to ensure that this document was issued?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand there have been widespread demands in the House and in the country for more information, and that is what is being provided.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the issue itself, which is bound to be of considerable constitutional importance, instead of merely reading out quotations? Does he admit that there is now a majority

in the country opposed to these terms of entry? In those circumstances, how can he justify—[Interruption.] Are we to be allowed to make constitutional points, Mr. Speaker, or are we to be shouted down all the time? It is about time we had an opportunity to put points to the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be protecting the interests of all Members.
Given the fact that the majority of people are opposed to the Government's proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman, addressing himself to the constitutional issue, give equal facilities to those in the country who take a contrary view to publish 5 million pamphlets, distributed free through the Post Office, or stop the propaganda operation in which he is unlawfully engaged?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that it is unlawful. I have made the position perfectly clear.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there is an important constitutional principle behind these heated exchanges? May I therefore put my question as someone who is wholly unembarrassed by any precedents which may be produced, having criticised these actions as strongly in 1967 as at any other time? Does he accept the principle, as defined by the Institute of Public Administration, that there should be no payment out of public funds for producing publicity material on a controversial subject not yet settled? Does not my right hon. Friend think that principle applies in this case?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise my right hon. and learned Friend's important contribution and his interest in these matters, and I recognise the importance of the whole question.

Mr. John Mendelson: Answer it.

Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer, I shall be only too pleased to do so. I think that it is perfectly clear that on this occasion the House approved the application to join. This White Paper reports the result of the negotiations, and I believe that that is perfectly proper and right.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, because they think that Britain must enter the Common Market, the Government are prepared to ride


roughshod over any constitutional issue in order to publish propaganda on it? Is that what he is telling the House?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly not, under no circumstances whatsoever.

Mr. Maddan: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the people want to know both the facts and the arguments which the Government use? For that reason, will he accept that the vast majority of the public greatly welcomes the Government's action?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that there will be any difficulty in this country knowing both sides of this particular argument.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House is right to be concerned about the use of public money on such a scale for propaganda on any cause? Although on this occasion he may justify it as being a question of circulating the factual outcome of the previous Government's application to join the E.E.C., will he accept that there are inherent dangers for the future and will he consider drafting rules for this or any future Government to follow? Secondly, as one of the opportunities for displaying both sides of this question to the public will arise by way of debate in the House, when will we have a chance to discuss whether the debate on the White Paper will be broadcast?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept at once that one should consider all the precedents and all the considerations in any particular case, and I realise the great importance of making a decision. The Government have made a decision which they believe to be perfectly correct in this case. In other cases the Government have not published shortened versions of White Papers because they were advised that it would be wrong to do so. In this case they have taken a decision the other way, and that is perfectly reasonable and proper. As for the question of broadcasting, I am prepared to give time if the House would wish that to happen.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, why did he not tell the hon. Member who asked that

rules should be laid down that there are rules and the Government have broken them? Secondly, since the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument rested on the fact that the House approved the application—which is true, though even after that we charged for documents which were put out : we did not issue free of charge the relevant ones which he knows about—is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this particular document contains a whole host of information not approved by Parliament? The application was approved, the terms have not been approved, by Parliament. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the covering note by the Prime Minister it is said that the short version explains why
the Government firmly believes that the terms for British entry into the European Community are fair and reasonable"?
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to believe that, but that has not been approved by the House. It is not covered by the application, and is not covered by every rule followed by every previous Government, and the right hon. Gentleman, whatever he believes, is now spending taxpayers' money on something he is not justified in spending taxpayers' money on.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that for a moment. I might also mention now an instance which I might have mentioned before to the right hon. Gentleman, the question of the Geddes Report on Ship building. I will try again with another one—the short version of the Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy, Cmnd. 3438, published in November, 1967. Copies were given free for distribution to the National Coal Board at Stationery Office expense. That had not been approved by Parliament.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems to me there are three courses open to the House—to pursue this dispute now, or to find other ways of debating it, or to debate it on the White Paper, when all these arguments will be completely in order.

Mr. John Mendelson: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, on a matter of urgent, definite and public importance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member hear what I just said? All these matters will be in order in debate on the White Paper.

Mr. Mendelson: I use this earliest opportunity to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, as revised, on a matter of urgent, definite public importance, namely, the Government's decision to issue party political propaganda through the free services of the Post Office.
In moving this Motion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit three points, and they are all related to the constitutional, procedural aspect of the matter and not to the substance of the issue of the Common Market. [Interruption.] I hope that on this occasion as on past occasions Members of this House will accord a proper hearing to an individual back bencher, even to one on the opposite side, and that it will be possible for me to make this speech amid some silence.

Mr. Paget: This point of order is a sheer waste of time.

Mr. Mendelson: All right, but it is for Mr. Speaker to decide despite that interruption.
The issue I wish to submit is based upon three propositions, first, that this matter has to be raised now—[An HON. MEMBER : "On Wednesday."]—because the giving out of this particular party political propaganda pamphlet is proceeding and if we want any action taken by the House about it it has got to be done here and now.
The second proposition I wish to submit is that, in spite of all the arguments so far put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, he has been quite unable to give any answer to the legitimate point that half the country at least, and according to a recent survey, more than half, is completely opposed to the party political book which the Government are trying to distribute free by giving it these free facilities.
The third constitutional point is that if it were once established that the Government could of their own decision produce a propaganda pamphlet and print 5 million or perhaps more copies of that pamphlet before it has been submitted to the House of Commons and that Government have a right to spend sums

estimated at between £860,000 and £2 million without any approval by the House of Commons, which is the only body which is entitled to give approval for further expenditure by a supplementary Vote, and when there has been no authority given by this Chamber, which is the only authority entitled to pass that expenditure and give such authority for publication, we are well on the road to Government deciding to use public resources for party propaganda purposes. I submit that that would be a dangerous new departure, to which the House of Commons has never given its approval.
It is on those grounds that I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on this important matter so that it may be debated this evening or early tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific matter of urgent, definite and public importance which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely the Government's decision to provide free facilities for disseminating party political propaganda.
Under Standing Order No. 9 this is a matter for me to decide. I have to consider not only the arguments put forward, and the feelings of the House, but also what other opportunities there are for considering the matter. I am afraid that I cannot submit the Motion to the House. Mr. Whitelaw, to move his Motion.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the opportunity to put this point a little earlier when you indicated that the last point of order was irrelevant. On Thursday last the question of a Motion which I had on the Paper was raised. As a result of that the Leader of the House agreed today to make a statement on my Motion. He did so, and, in the circumstances, I feel that I ought to have had the opportunity to put a question on it.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. and learned Member. I am sorry. Had I remembered that fact, I think I would certainly have called him.

Mr. Paget: May I put a question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Whitelaw.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

4.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of Wednesday last be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the fact that on Friday the House made no change in the procedures which have been followed hitherto, I am sure the House will now feel that the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman is right and that the complaint should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Orme: No. In view of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I feel——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Orme: Am I to be allowed to speak?

Mr. Speaker: I really would ask hon. Members to hear what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has to say.

Mr. Orme: I want to make one or two observations before this matter proceeds to the Select Committee. Some of us feel that the case presented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) last Thursday should not go to the Committee of Privileges. Had this statement been made by the senior officer present at the conference or by the decision or resolution of the conference, then the matter should have been referred immediately to the Committee of Privileges, but this statement was made by an officer of the union speaking purely in his personal capacity, without the knowledge of the executive or of any officers on the executive. If we allow this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, it will mean that any individual in any assembly or conference throughout the country making such a statement could be dealt with similarly, and the House would be brought into disrepute.
I have read the report of what was said and have heard first-hand accounts by people who were at the conference, although the Transport and General Workers' Union is not a union to which I am attached. It should be borne in

mind that this was a personal statement which contained no direct threats, and that no sponsored members of the union had received any intimation of it. Hon. Members are also aware of what the general secretary of the union has subsequently said. I therefore feel that it would be in the interests of the House for the Motion to be withdrawn. I am making no personal reference to the Leader of the House, but it would be wrong for our later debate to be concerned with accusations and counter-accusations about statements which carry no authority made by people with honest and strong feelings. Such statements should not be taken so seriously by the House.
The House should be big enough to assess the situation and not be frightened of criticism. Where there is intimidation the House, quite rightly, will take the necessary action, but no such initimidation has occurred. The dignity of the House is involved. The House of Commons should be big enough not to send this issue to the Committee of Privileges, where time and effort will be involved and the matter will be spread over several months. Having heard one or two other points of view, we should say to the Leader of the House that it is in the interests of the House that the Motion should be withdrawn. We should get on with our major debate on the Common Market, about which we all feel passionately. The facts are as I have stated. I do not distort or twist facts for the sake of political argument. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the Motion in the interests of the House of Commons.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am in some difficulty, because I have considerable sympathy with some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. The last thing the House wishes to do is to blow up this matter. I have no reason to dissent from the facts that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but it is not for me, as the possible Chairman of the Committee of Privileges later, to state any view on the facts one way or the other.
I put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. The best course, in order to keep temperatures down and not to have rather a stormy debate at this stage, is to allow the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges,


where all the matters which the hon. Gentleman has put forward can be carefully considered by a Committee which over the years has enjoyed a certain amount of acceptance in the House. The Committee would take the greatest possible care and the matter would not be discussed in an emotional atmosphere. If we go on to debate it, there is a danger that that would happen. It is precisely to avoid that danger that I should like the matter to be put to a quieter forum in the Committee of Privileges, so that the matter can be considered quietly, away from what the hon. Gentleman described as the major debate in which we are engaged. I hope that he will allow this to be done. My sole desire is that this matter shall not be blown up to a size which is not justified.

Mr. David Steel: I do not dissent from a large part of what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said, but I have every confidence in the Committee of Privileges investigating what was said and disposing of the matter in whatever way it thinks fit. It would be wrong for a public debate on a matter of this kind to take place in the House before the Committee of Privileges is able to look at it. It is a most serious matter when a report is made in any newspaper of a speech by a delegate to the conference in question which tries to bring pressure on a Member of Parliament, and it should at least have the consideration of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Driberg: There is no need for this discussion to be long or stormy, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. If every time one of our millions of constituents made some casual remark of this kind in a public or semi-public meeting it were to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, that Committee would be in continuous session. There was no need to have bothered either the Committee of Privileges or the House of Commons on this matter. Mr. Kitson was not speaking as an official of the union or with any authority from the union. He was not addressing, either orally or in writing, any individual Member of this House.
The whole thing is a storm about nothing and should, with respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and

Peebles (Mr. David Steel) never have been raised at all. Mr. Kitson is merely one of our constituents. That sort of remark is constantly being made by constituents, and every hon. Member knows it. It is a bit of nonsense and a waste of time for the Committee of Privileges. I hope that some means can be found of not bothering the Committee with this matter. I foresee with absolute certainly—I have a heavy bet on this—that the Committee of Privileges will recommend almost at once that no action be taken.

Sir J. Rodgers: Could I ask whether the gentleman in question has withdrawn the remark?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Many hon. Members had great sympathy with the case outlined by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme), but that sympathy tended to evaporate when the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) attempted to embroider his hon. Friend's remarks by suggesting that this was a matter which arose out of nothing. This is undoubtedly a case of some substance, although opinions in the House may well differ on how much importance should be attached to it. The course this debate is in danger of taking fully supports the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is certainly in order for any hon. Member to raise a question of privilege. It is then, Sir, the duty of the Chair to rule on that in a prima facie way precisely to avoid discussion of an emotive matter of this nature in a party political atmosphere——

Mr. Latham: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. This arises directly out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, when you commented on this matter you reminded the House that you were choosing your words carefully because there were impending changes in the procedure for dealing with matters of this kind. You did not then, as has become customary, rule whether you considered the remarks to be a prima facie breach of privilege.
Surely the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) are particularly pertinent. It is true that, unless there is some limitation, every kind of trivial complaint could be raised


in the House and could take up the time of the Committee of Privileges, which would spend a great part of its time considering these matters. Surely what normally would occur would be that you, Sir, in your wisdom would advise the House whether there was a prima facie case and normally you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons, would be the safeguard against the very situation suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and would prevent such a situation arising regularly, as I submit may well be the case on this occasion.
The point of order is this : since the practice has arisen of Mr. Speaker ruling whether there is a prima facie case, the procedure has been for the Leader of the House to move a Motion such as he has now put before the House. What I put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you have not ruled that there is a prima facie case. Secondly, I ask whether it is right for the Leader of the House to assume that he has a duty to move such a Motion, or whether it would assist the House if he were now to let the matter drop.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to get involved in an argument about this matter. It is my view—and I may be wrong—that it is not for Mr. Speaker to rule that there is a prima facie case. I have always disliked the term. It is for Mr. Speaker to say whether he will allow a Motion to take precedence. If Mr. Speaker says that there is a prima facie case, that implies a measure of guilt. I said that I would give precedence to a Motion. Then, on Thursday it was suggested that it was the general will of the House that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that the Leader of the House should have the discretion, in the light of Friday's debate, whether to put this Motion forward again today. Since following the debate on Friday the relevant Motion was withdrawn, it means I am bound to give precedence to this Motion today.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in saying—I am advised on these matters, and I do not act from my own knowledge—that if Mr. Speaker rules that the matter has precedence, I have no alternative but to do what I have done. You ruled on Friday, Mr. Speaker, that the matter had precedence—[An HON. MEMBER : "You

can withdraw it."] I can withdraw it, but I thought it was being suggested that I was not bound to move such a Motion because of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. It has been made clear to me that in the circumstances, because of the situation following what Mr. Speaker said, I am bound to move such a Motion. That is how I understand the position and that is how I am advised.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose——

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. In view of what the Leader of the House said, it would appear that the Ruling was made upon the basis that there had been a threat. It has now been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that no threat was made, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) agrees that no threat has been made. In the circumstances, the basis of the complaint seems to have disappeared. Surely the simplest plan is for the Leader of the House to agree that the Motion should be negatived.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is my speech that is in danger, and I apologise for intervening with my speech into all these points of order. The point I was making was that, whether your Ruling was one giving precedence to a Motion or was a Ruling of a prima facie breach of privilege—do you wish to make a Ruling, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I wish to clear up the matter by reading from Erskine May, which I think bears out what I have said. I am reading from the 18th edition of Erskine May :
When the document or the particular passages complained of have been read and if the Speaker has ruled that the complaint should have priority over the orders of the day, it is the duty of the Member who has brought the matter under the notice of the House, if the Leader of the House does not make a motion relating to it, to follow up his complaint with a motion.
That is how the matter stands.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles would like this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges. He is the Member who raised it in the first instance. I understand that that is what he wants to do, and that is why I am leaving it in this way.

Mr. Thorpe: May I raise a point?—[HON. MEMBERS : "Is it a point of order?"]—No.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. I was, thanks to your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, in occupation of the Floor and my speech was being interrupted by points of order. The point I am making is whether once a Ruling has been made, whether it be a prima facie Ruling or not, the procedure exists to ensure that the point of substance will be given totally impartial consideration. It is clear that in such a case as this, which concerns trade unions, there will be emotive reactions from both sides of the House. Therefore, it is much better for this discussion to be carried on in an impartial atmosphere in the Committee of Privileges. That is why the Committee of Privileges exists.
It would be quite wrong to censure any hon. Member for raising a question because in the opinion of another hon. Member it was not a very important question. It is the right of every hon. Member to raise a question of privilege without the danger of incurring censure from fellow Members. On the other hand, it is up to the Committee of Privileges whether or not it passes some judgment.
I suggest that the debate has been unduly prolonged—[HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] My own speech, which was meant to be very brief, was extended by the zeal of interrupters. Would it not now be much better to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and let this issue go to the Committee of Privileges, which may be relied upon to give an impartial judgment?

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have today had two statements, both of which the House very much wanted to hear and neither of which the House would have wished to see curtailed in any way. We are now having a discussion which no one would wish to see curtailed, because the subject is of great importance. But there is on the Order Paper provision for a debate in which many hon. Members wish to take part. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to amend his Busi-

ness programme in order to extend that debate by one hour?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Thorpe: I shall not detain the House for more than a moment, and I wish to make only one point. I will put that point, if I may, in the nature of an interrogatory to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and I hope that he will consider it. I express no opinion on the merits of the case, because I am a member of the Committee of Privileges and it would be wrong for an opinion to be expressed. I believe, too, though the House may find it difficult to accept, that it would be wrong for any members of that Committee to form a view until they have heard the evidence.
I am asked why I took part in Thursday's discussion. I sought to intervene purely on a procedural matter. It had nothing to do with the merits of the matter whatsoever, and it would have been highly improper for me to have commented on them.
You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled no more than that the matter should have precedence if that be the wish of the House. The position is this : if the facts as put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, West are borne out by the evidence, no doubt the Committee of Privileges will come to a certain decision, but there may be a different situation—I know not. All I ask is that if the hon. Gentleman believes that at the end of the day justice must be done, in what way are individuals concerned more likely to receive justice : by a debate across the Floor of the House, with various hon. Members giving their own views, making their own deductions and expressing their own opinions, or in the more quasi-judicial atmosphere of the Committee of Privileges?
Inevitably, the atmosphere is more quasi-judicial, when any individual who feels that he is concerned or involved has the right to appear before that Committee. Alternatively, he has the right to write his version of the particular matters in question, and that document will be considered. If individuals feel that they have been wronged, or that a particular interpretation should not be placed on their actions, I can think of no better guarantee than the Committee of


Privileges that they will be effectively, fairly and impartially listened to.
That is why I support the Leader of the House—and, I may say, the Leader of the Opposition—in the view that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges and, in fairness to all those persons who were involved in the last debate, the less debate we now have on the merits of the case the more likely it is that justice will be done at the end of the day.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), but first I want to deal with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party. It is certainly not the case that an hon. Member has a right to go to the Committee of Privileges. It is certainly not the case that the Committee of Privileges calls on hon. Members. It is certainly not the case that hon. Members are given the opportunity of submitting documents and being heard——

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe rose——

Mr. Lewis: No, I will not give way——

Mr. Thorpe: Then withdraw.

Mr. Lewis: I will not withdraw. I said that it is not the case——

Mr. Thorpe: I never said it was.

Mr. Lewis: I say that it is not the case, and I can substantiate what I say. I myself made a complaint of breach of privilege concerning one of the servants of the House. Not once was I asked to give evidence. Not once was I asked to submit any written document.
To my way of thinking, it was wrong that of those who took part in last Thursday's discussion every one, with the exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who raised the case, was and is a member of the Committe of Privileges. It is, therefore, rather strange to hear talk of an impartial judgment being passed when before the case was referred to that Committee, for it to come to any decision at all, five or six hon. and right hon. Members of that Committee took part in Thursday's discussion——

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has implied that hon. Members of the Committee of Privileges who took part in Thursday's discussion on purely procedural matters had, by so doing, expressed a clear opinion on the merits of the case in question. In my submission, that is a grossly improper allegation, and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Lewis: I never suggested that the right hon. Member or any of the five or six members of the Committee of Privileges who took part in Thursday's discussion passed any judgment on the issue. What I said was that they passed an opinion on the procedural point, which is just the point made my my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. The procedural point is : why should this complaint go to the Committee of Privileges? Why should the issue, which is a dangerous issue, be discussed?
I have read Press comments on certain action which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is alleged to have taken or failed to have taken, because he is on the paid lobby of commercial radio, but I would not say that that sort of thing should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Comments are made in every newspaper every day of the week on whether an hon. Member will be persuaded one way or the other.
Only last week I heard on the radio, and I read in the Press, that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to be threatened if they did not vote for the Common Market. That was said in public. If hon. and right hon. Members are to be threatened that unless they vote in favour of the Common Market they may find that they are not adopted as candidates, and so lose their seats, is the Committee of Privileges to investigate that sort of threat also?
Will the Committee of Privileges investigate the fact that almost every day of the week in every constituency party, whether it be the Tory Party or the Labour Party, members of that party say, "Unless my Member does this, that or the other I will tell him that I will take certain action against him"? That sort of thing is said in every party at every meeting on almost every day of the week.
The same can be said of the unions. Over the years, I have heard trade union members say, "This is not what I pay money into the union funds for—to give to this Member who does not carry out union policy, so I feel that we should withdraw his funds." The person who made this statement, and makes it every day of the week, happens to be a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. This member did not ask the union to pass any official judgment for or against it. Nor did the members of the Tory Party, who last week threatened to twist the arm of hon. Members and to take away their candidature——

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Sir H. Legge-Bourke indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: I and some of my hon. Friend have read about it and heard it on the radio. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) admitted on radio last week that he had heard about the twisting of his arm, and he rightly said that no one could twist his arm to do anything that he did not want to do. I agree, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is known to be a man of courage and he will still do whatever he wished. Nevertheless, other hon. Members opposite have had such threats issued against them, and I am hoping that it will make no difference to those hon. Members.
It would be wrong for this matter to go to the Committee of Privileges because there has been too much discussion of procedural points. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West clearly put the procedural point. Let the matter be withdrawn. We have had the debate. Nothing of any positive character has been said or done. An individual member of the Labour Party who happens to be employed in a trade union capacity has passed an opinion to his union members, saying that he feels that certain action ought to be taken. He may be right or wrong, but surely he ought to be entitled to pass that opinion. He has done so and I hope he will pass other opinions, and, if need be, a similar opinion on future occasions.
If the union had passed a resolution saying that it would take a Mr. X off

its financial panel in view of these matters, there might possibly be a case that could be referred. This matter is certainly a storm in a teacup and is not worth bothering about.

Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) recall that the Press report which I read to the House contained the sentence :
Mr. Kitson's warnings carry weight, for he represents trade unions on the Labour Party National Executive.

Mr. Lewis: Of course they carry weight. The chairman of my local party carries weight.

Mr. Russell Kerr: So do you. [Laughter.]——

Mr. Lewis: I take the point—but not so much weight as I used to. I am glad that this matter is getting the light treatment that it deserves, because the whole subject is laughable. The remarks were made by an official of a trade union. So what? I have referred to the hon. Member for Hendon, North. Let us suppose that a commercial television organisation, as an observation on one of its officials, says that he is acting only in his commercial interest. Do I then say that that should be referred to the Committee of Privileges? Of course I do not, because this happens every day of the week.

Mr. Gorst: The only difference is that the commercial radio lobbies made no threats.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member is quite right. Nor has the Transport and General Workers' Union. There has been no threat in any of its actions. All that has happened is that a member of the union who happens to be a paid official has expressed an opinion. I say, "Good luck" to him. I hope that he passes lots of opinions. Whether they are for or against my point of view does not matter. He should be entitled to pass his opinion. If the executive comes to a decision, that executive decision should be judged on merits. No action has been taken by any organisation to interfere in any way with the rights of any Member of the House. The whole matter should be dropped.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance whether it would be in order for me now to move, That the question be now put?

Mr. Speaker: It would be in order for the hon. Member so to move, but it would be for the Chair to decide whether to accept the Motion. I am not prepared to accept it just yet.

Mr. Ashton: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. McNamara: I enter the debate with some diffidence, as I am a Member sponsored by the same trade union.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In this debate would it not be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if you were to hear first at least one hon. Member who was present when these remarks were made and who is a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Mr. McNamara: I have declared my interest. There would have been a case, and a very proper case, if any trade union had sought to pass a resolution to instruct its sponsored Members how they should or should not vote. No such resolution was passed ; we merely have the question of opinion.
There has been no intimation to me, nor to any other hon. Member of my Parliamentary trade union group, in any way or on any occasion, how to vote. The only three-line Whip we receive is signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), not by Len Foden or Jack Jones. We have merely had a person stating an opinion ; nor more and no less. We should let the matter drop.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers' Union. Before I came to the House, for some years I was an officer of that union. I have always felt privi-

leged and proud to belong to that great trade union. My hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) and I were the only two Members of the House present at the conference in Scarborough last week when the remarks referred to were made.

An amalgamation between the Scottish Commercial Motormen and the Transport and General Workers' Union has recently been concluded. Mr. Kitson was the general secretary of the Scottish Commercial Motormen and addressed the conference of the T.G.W.U. as a fraternal delegate, no more and no less. He did not speak in a debate. He was called purely to make a fraternal address. One feels, perhaps, that Mr. Kitson's remarks were rather forthright and possibly near the bone ; but I uphold his right to his opinions in this matter. I am rather disgusted that it was a Liberal Member who raised this issue, an hon. Member who has stood up for many radical causes and whom I have admired very much in the past.

The question of sponsorship by trade unions is purely a voluntary arrangement and any hon. Member, if he feels intimidated in any way, is entitled to withdraw at any time from that sponsorship. Nevertheless sponsorship is a long and honoured tradition in the House of Commons.

As a Member sponsored by the T.G.W.U., I have had no pressure put upon me at any time on any issue before the House. In pursuing this matter, the House is getting into an all-too-fragile atmosphere. The matter should be dropped without further debate.

Mr. Mellish: Mr. Mellish rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly :—

The House divided : Ayes 205, Noes 95.

Division No. 435.]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bell, Ronald
Boscawen, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Benyon, W.
Braine, Bernard


Astor, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biggs-Davison, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Body, Richard
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)




Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kitson, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Antony
Royle, Anthony


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
St. John-stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sharples, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Longden, Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)


Dykes, Hugh
McCann, John
Soref, Harold


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MoCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


English, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, lain


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fermer, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David


Fidler, Michael
Madel, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fowler, Norman
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Cifmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Tilney, John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Money, Ernie
Trew, Peter


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Cower Raymond
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Chartes (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gummer, Selwyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gurden, Harold
Normanton, Tom
Ward, Dame Ireme


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idri8 (Stockport, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Haselhust, Alan
Pardoe, John
Wilkinson, John


Havers, Michael
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Peel, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton



Hicks, Robert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Higgins, Terence L.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Hector Monro and


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
John Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kinnock, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lambie, David


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hardy, Peter
Latham, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Healley, Rt. Hn. Denis
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Lipton, Marcus


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Horam, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Deakins, Eric
Huckfield, Leslie
McBride, Neil


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
McCartney, Hugh


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marsden, F.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam
Meacher, Michael


Driberg, Tom
Jeger, Mrs. lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Mendelson, John







Mikardo, Ian
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


Molloy, William
Sandelson, Neville
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)

Wallace, George


Murray, Ronald King
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Oswald, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Pendry, Tom
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie



Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Probert, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Stanley Orme and


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Resolved,
That the matter of the complaint by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles of Wednesday last be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Questions which under the provisions of paragraph 11 of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) Mr. Speaker is directed to put at Ten o'clock, he shall this day put such Questions forthwith as soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Pym.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[29TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question, That the total amount outstanding for the year 1971–72 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes defined in the related Votes.

CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES 1971–72 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)

Question,
That a sum not exceeding £8,258,551,500 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on 31st March, 1972.

put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put severally the Questions on Motions relating to Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure].

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1969–70

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £5,443,894·65 out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1970 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 14th January, 1971 (H.C. 222) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 375).

put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1969–70

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,260,859·97 out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1970 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 14th January, 1971 (H.C. 223) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 375).

put and agreed to.

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1969–70

Question,
That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £9,825,192·07 out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March 1970 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure in one of those Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 14th January 1971 (H.C. 224) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 375).

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution relating to Civil and Defence Estimates by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Patrick Jenkin.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1972, and to appropriate the further supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (WHITE PAPER)

5.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House approves the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" (Command Paper No. 4728).
Certainly both sides of the House and both major political parties since the war have endeavoured in different ways to tackle the country's housing problem. It has been a feature of a number of elections that housing has been one of the major topics propounded by the various political parties. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of hon. Members opposite in endeavouring to tackle the housing problem facing the country. Their Government set forth with the most ambitious programme for house building of any post-war or, indeed, pre-war Government, and at the end of their period of


government they had to confess that they had reached a position where there was a general decline in the housing conditions in this country.
The White Paper that we are discussing today is a result of our analysis of the total problem that existed when we took office in June of last year and an attempt to tackle it in a constructive way. The position that we inherited last June was, beyond doubt, very serious. In the public sector a very real decline was taking place. It has been suggested by the Opposition that the reason for this was the political views of local councils. The official view as published by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government appeared in the annual report of his Department as follows :
Following devaluation the Government decided in 1968 to make reductions in the public authority house-building programme below the level previously planned.
Therefore, there was a positive decision by the Labour Government following devalution to cut back their previous proposals.
When we came into office the slum clearance programme was also in decline. The rent system in this country, whatever afterwards may have been propounded for it, nobody could possibly have defended as fair. It was unfair. There were plenty of people who needed much more help but who were not receiving it. The level of a council house rent in the public sector was very much a matter of chance as to the locality in which one lived rather than the needs of one's own family or one's own housing need. As to the direct assistance to the individual, 40 per cent. of local authorities had no rebate scheme at all. There was a private sector with no rebate scheme at all, and as to the 60 per cent. of local authorities who operated a rebate scheme, many of those rebate schemes were thoroughly inadequate.
We had a system of housing subsidies in which only £1 in £10 was being spent on the direct reduction of rents of those people who needed help. The voluntary housing movement, encouraged in theory by both sides of the House, was facing a major crisis and was in decline. In the private sector we had a situation in which 1¼ million houses were rent controlled, their rent levels having been fixed

14 years previously, in 1957, and any objective person would have recognised that those houses were likely to deteriorate into slums as the months went by. Another 1¼ million tenants in the private sector paid fair rents as defined by the previous Labour Government but with no rebate scheme at all.
As to owner-occupation, there was an even steeper decline in the number of starts. In addition, S.E.T., betterment levy and other matters had handicapped owner-occupation. The building societies were short of money and the prospects for the building industry in the private sector were very grave indeed. This was a grave disappointment to hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), whose passion on the housing front I respect, as we all do, summed up the feeling of his own Party when, in an article in the New Statesman after the General Election, he wrote :
As one of the politicians involved, I admit to being thoroughly ashamed that my term of office did not produce anything like the approach that is needed to solve the problem of housing.
In those few days and weeks when he was Minister of Housing he intimated that he himself intended to change the whole basis of housing policy if he were allowed to do so. I state this proposition not to make party points but to show that we inherited a position that was extremely serious, that a Government dedicated to housing the people in a better way, after six years in office, had reached a situation where the position in the public sector, the voluntary housing sector and the private sector, to rent and for owner-occupation, was bleak and bad.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he quoted what I said. I think he will accept that from 1964 till the period of devaluation the Labour Government had the finest housing record ever known in the history of this country.

Mr. Walker: I am not denying that the intentions with which the Labour Government set out were honourable. But they inherited a fast-rising programme, unlike the present Government who inherited a fast-declining one.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, on the public sector we had to spend the first nine or 10 months doing nothing else but beg local authorities to get under way and improve their programmes.

Mr. Walker: I refer back to the quotation from the right hon. Gentleman after the General Election, that he was one of the politicians involved who were ashamed that his term of office did not produce anything like an approach which was needed to solve the problem. As someone who witnessed on television the Labour Party conference debate on housing after the election—because, of course, I was not invited to the conference—I can say that there was no doubt that there was widespread disappointment throughout the Labour Party at what happened. Therefore, this White Paper endeavours to put forward proposals to change the situation.
As to the public sector, we intend to see that rents go over to a fair rent basis as defined by the Labour Party's own definition of fair rents in the Rent Act, 1965.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central) rose——

Mr. Walker: No, I am not giving way. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I normally give way, but if I were to do so it might prevent others from speaking.
On the matter of fair rents we have decided to choose this definition and to apply it in the public and private sectors. This will mean that for the first time we shall have a situation of much greater fairness throughout the country. It will not be a matter of luck or chance depending on when a council built the main part of its stock of council houses. It is a policy which will not adversely affect the worst areas, as so frequently the present council house rent policy does. There are many inner London boroughs which, because of the size and scale of housing programmes, have discovered that no matter the extent to which they pool the historic cost of their rents, they still have to charge high rents. By having the same basis for rents we shall create a system of greater justice than before.
We have also introduced into the White Paper specific incentives and a new basis of accelerating slum clearance.

I think I can say that in the negotiations which the Minister for Housing and Construction had—there were very detailed negotiations with the local authorities—all sections of local authorities were agreed that the change that will take place in the subsidies for slum clearance will remove some of the considerable financial handicaps which were imposed upon local authorities previously. There is no doubt that this clear-cut system of subsidising slum clearance and meeting the entire cost of slum clearance will enable a vastly accelerated programme to get under way.
The national rebate scheme which we propose to introduce has been criticised by some hon. Members opposite as introducing another means test, and they have argued that, as it will apply the means test over the wide field of council house tenants and private tenants, it is bad. In this connection, I remind the House of what was said by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson), formerly a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and one who often takes a leading part—I understand that he is to wind up the debate tonight—on housing matters. This is what the hon. Gentleman said at Question Time shortly after the General Election, implying pretty distinctly that a Labour Government would themselves have done exactly the same :
In pursuit of that objective, which has been mentioned a great deal by hon. Members opposite, will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister consider pursuing the consideration which the previous Administration gave, as part of their reconsideration of housing finance, to a national rebate scheme to apply to people in private accommodation as well as public? "—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 14th July. 1970 ; Vol. 808, c. 1347–8.]
It is reasonable to interpret that as a strong indication that this was a fairly firm thought in the Labour Government's mind, and, presumably, as the hon. Gentleman put it forward then, it was a thought which he found attractive as a possible means of dealing with this problem.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: It was not the last Government's intention to introduce what is, in effect, a market system for rents in local authority housing. That is the big difference between the situation then and now.

Mr. Walker: I assume from that interjection by the former Minister that, although he disagrees with us on the fair rent basis, the previous Government had in mind a national rebate scheme. This is the point which I am making. Those hon. Members opposite who object to a national rebate scheme as a mass means test should remember that there was a fairly clear indication that the previous Government had a national rebate scheme well under consideration.
It is an interesting fact that, in all the commentary on our White Paper since its publication last week, it has been dealt with by many of the journals particularly interested in this topic and it has been dealt with by many observers working socially in this sphere—I know of only one detailed criticism of the rebate scheme, I know of no one who has suggested that it is not generous, and I know of no one who suggests that it will not be of real help to people on lower incomes. The only detailed criticism which has been made is that, perhaps, it treats single-parent families more unreasonably than previous rebate schemes. This is certainly a matter which we shall look at.
Our scheme will for the first time give the chance of a rent allowance to 2½ million people in the private sector who had no chance of a rebate under the previous Government, it will ensure that the fair rent policy in the public sector is accompanied by a rebate scheme which is generous, and it will concentrate help where it is needed most.
I come to the effect of our proposals on the voluntary housing movement. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction can fairly claim to have had more detailed talks and negotiations with this movement than any previous Minister had. He has carefully considered the many points, facets and difficulties of the movement. The powers which we shall take in our legislation to see that, where necessary, 90 per cent. of any deficit is met for the first three years—that period can be extended, if necessary—will mean that the movement can get under way in a far more effective and well-organised fashion than has ever been possible before. It is our intention that the legislation should serve that purpose. I know that the National

Federation of Housing Societies, perhaps the most important collective body in this connection, is grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend considered in great detail the various points and problems which it put to him.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) rose——

Mr. Walker: I will not give way now. I am trying to be brief, in view of the pressure of time.
As regards private sector rents, we are moving the 1¼ million people who are now in the controlled sector over to the fair rent system. I thought that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), taking his traditional line in his letter to The Guardian today, and saying how terrible it was——

Mr. Frank Allaun: So it is.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that, but it was the declared policy of the Labour Government when they introduced their Rent Act in 1965—this was made perfectly clear by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government—that all of them would eventually be moved over to the fair rent system. This is no new policy which we are announcing. It was the declared policy of the previous Government in introducing the Rent Act, 1965.
I believe that the hon. Member for Salford, East in his comments in The Guardian this morning is misleading the public—obviously, not intentionally—when he suggests that there will be massive increase in rents for very bad slum properties. Any study of the rent assessments made under the fair rent system will show that that is just not so. It may well be that some of the worst slum properties on controlled rents will have lower rents fixed under the fair rent system than prevail under the controlled rent system now. There are examples of very low rents—sums of 10p or 12½p and the like—being fixed for very bad properties, and I am sure that that will be the case.
Can anyone defend a system under which rents for these houses are to be kept at the levels imposed—and then not very generous levels—in 1957, 14 years ago? Without doubt, this policy has resulted in more houses falling into bad condition than has almost any other


policy. The Milner Holland Report shows what is the ownership of these properties. They are not owned by the large landlords. Milner Holland pointed out that in London 60 per cent. of the rented properties are owned by people who own only one such property, and 40 per cent. of those people are old-age pensioners. To argue that these are the people who should subsidise and support the maintenance of buildings kept at the artificially low levels of 1957 is to argue a case which cannot be objectively supported by those who wish to see an improvement of housing conditions in this country.

Mr. Allaun: To help these people and the poor council tenants the Minister is introducing a rebate scheme under which application will have to be made. His scheme is based on the assumption that everyone is ready to hold his hand out. This is just not true. There are masses of poor people who are too proud to apply. Under the existing rent rebate schemes, very few apply compared with the number entitled. Under the family income supplement scheme, only one in four of those whom the Government expected to apply have in fact applied, and the same will happen under the Minister's rebate scheme.

Mr. Walker: The previous Government sent out a circular urging that the subsidies should be used on rebate schemes. This was then their policy. One major difference which we shall pursue is that, in order to ensure that there is the fullest possible take-up of our rebate scheme, the details and the method will go in every rent book in the country. That will make a considerable difference.
I come to the difficult question of furnished tenancies. I can well understand the feeling that this is an area of poverty and difficulty which the measures announced in the White Paper do not reach. But I must in fairness point out that at no time during the six years of the Labour Government was there any move whatever to do anything about this sector. I do not believe that that was so because right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not care about people in these dwellings ; it was so because they realised that there were very real difficulties in doing something about it.
There appears to be a suggestion in certain commentaries that it is easy and that one should do exactly the same for furnished tenancies as though there were no difficult problems and consequences. I do not believe that the Labour Party would ever advocate—certainly, when it had a policy committee looking into the question it did not advocate it—that the two out of five persons in furnished tenancies where the houses are lived in by the owner also should have security of tenure imposed. I have never heard any responsible member of the Leadership of the Labour Party suggest that. This affects two-fifths of them. Before the Election, the Labour Party did not make its position clear.
The reason is a genuine doubt about the adverse effect that any move in that direction might have on the supply of this type of accommodation. We have published the White Paper. I shall be interested to hear constructive suggestions about how we can tackle this problem in a way which is practicable and feasible and which will not result in a great reduction of the available accommodation. My predecessors did not find this an easy one to tackle, otherwise I am sure the Labour Government would have endeavoured to do so. When the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) introduced his 1965 Housing Act, he found it an impossible problem to tackle. Before that, referring to a quotation often used by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, when the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan was the Minister responsible he firmly rejected a proposal to do it. This is not a case of a group of reactionary people not wanting to help. Various Governments have concluded that the practical difficulties involved are too great.
I want to see that the rights of tenants are more known to them than in the past. We shall see to it in the legislation that the rent book is used in a more positive way in order to bring a tenant's rights to his attention. We shall increase the penalties for victimisation of tenants and, for the first time in history, we shall be providing tenants with a generous rent rebate scheme. In combination, this is a better total deal for people in that sector than ever before.
Turning to owner-occupation, which is one of our aims, the White Paper details


our measures designed to provide a stimulus : the abolition of the betterment levy and the Land Commission, halving S.E.T., giving freedom to local authorities to sell council houses, doing away with stamp duty on mortgage deeds, coming to arrangements with building societies to give better facilities for those without capital but with reasonable incomes, making changes in the option mortgage scheme, the very important measure giving almost unlimited amounts of money for use by councils for local authority mortgages, the quite important measure arranging for the movement of people from the public to the private sector, so releasing greatly needed accommodation for others, and arranging with housing authorities to help with removal expenses and legal expenses. Here are eight policies of this Government which have resulted in an increase in starts in the last few months, and we have encouraged owner-occupation in these ways.
This is a White Paper which tries to see that in the public sector a fair rent system is applied with a proper rebate scheme. Under this policy, housing subsidies as they exist at present are not used indiscriminately but as a positive help to those who need it. These are proposals which in the private sector bring to 2½ million people for the first time a proper rent allowance scheme, which end the nonsense of controlling rents artificially at ridiculously low figures which only result in houses turning into slums. They give stimulation to the voluntary housing movement, and, as part of the total package, they continue positively to encourage owner-occupation.
The reception of these proposals must be of interest. The Daily Express described them as
… the wisest reform of housing this century.
The Daily Mail said :
It's fair and bold.
The Daily Telegraph and The Times referred to this as a good White Paper, and generally praised its proposals. The Economist summed up the White Paper by saying :
The immediate effect of these reforms, once legislation, to be introduced in the autumn, has been passed, should be a boost for council building in many places where this will still be the best means of housing poorer people. It should reduce the decay of older houses ; push some richer council tenants out into

owner occupation ; radically alter the relationship between councils and their tenants and would-be tenants ; and eventually it may change many of the social distinctions which have grown up between the different sectors of housing. It is an overdue reform.
What must be even more interesting to hon. Gentlemen opposite is the general reception of these proposals elsewhere. For example, New Society, which cannot be described as not being reasonably objective on these problems, referred to these proposals and said :
This is, in fact, the first entirely logical approach to housing finance.
As for the Sun newspaper, which is not a Right-wing paper either——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nor Left wing.

Mr. Walker: Perhaps it is objective. Its editorial used the following words :
We have mucked about with the problem for too long. We have had controls that kept rents too low to pay for repairs. Or we have scrapped controls and priced people out on to the streets. We have built council houses for the under-privileged—and made a special privileged class of their tenants. The Tories have a plan for ending the unfairness. They want to shift subsidies from properties to people, even if that does involve means tests. From each according to his ability : to each according to his need.
In its editorial yesterday, the Observer said :
The basic principle underlying the Government's 'fair deal' for housing deserves a warm welcome. … The result should mean less waste, more fairness, and better care of the nation's stock of property.
I am aware that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) is not keen on anyone quoting from the New Statesman. Previously, the right hon. Gentleman has commented on the quality and manner of its observations. For that reason, it must have been a relief to the right hon. Gentleman to find that the New Statesman's comment this time was not written by his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East but by a former colleague of his, much respected in the House when he was here, Mr. Christopher Price. The following is his general summary of a view on the White Paper which the Labour Party described as "reactionary". Mr. Price writes :
Mr. Walker's White Paper which abolishes existing housing subsidies and introduces a national rent rebate scheme is a serious effort to solve three problems which Labour failed


to tackle between 1964 and 1970. First, it attempts to clear up the chaotic jungle of existing subsidies ; secondly, it tries to provide a system of helping all those who need rebate, whether they rent their house from the local council or a private landlord, and thirdly, it is designed to concentrate housing subsidies on slum clearance.
Those are the comments of Mr. Christopher Price——

Mr. Skinner: That is why he cannot get : back here.

Mr. Richard Crossman: Read on.

Mr. Walker: I shall, with pleasure. Apparently the right hon. Member for Coventry, East gives his editorial approval. It goes on :
The Opposition should accept the fact that the scheme faces up to the basic problems they themselves shirked when in office. Although it is based on the strictest Tory principles, it contains elements Labour would have been forced to introduce had they won the election. Mr. Crosland would have been in a better position to criticise Mr. Walker constructively if the Labour Party had developed a coherent policy for housing finance over the past six years.
That brings me to question the position of the Labour Party. There is no doubt that, in electoral terms, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have considerable advantage if they were able to point out to anyone whose rent had been increased as a result of our legislation what the Labour Party would have done—[Interruption.] The Labour Party would take pleasure in gaining political capital by listening sympathetically to those who complain in Tory boroughs where, as a result of our scheme, it is seen that surpluses on housing accounts are taken away to assist some of the worst areas of housing. There may be local criticism of my proposals as a result.
In an exchange with the Leader of the Opposition the other day, I made it clear that I did not know what were the Labour Party's conclusions on housing. It had been implied that I knew what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had in mind before the General Election. However, as always happens on such occasions, the officials in my Department gave me no information about the conclusions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I made that quite clear. But if the officials in my Department gave me no information as

to what the Labour Party had in mind, leading members of the Labour Party helped me to come to the conclusion that the principles they would have followed would have been somewhat similar to my own.
In November, 1965, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East announced that the Government had not had time fully to review housing finance and that this was an urgent task. The review started in November, 1965. We heard nothing more for three years until, in January, 1968, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) announced :
… My right hon. Friends and I are now discussing the whole question of housing finance in the public sector, and specifically whether the present housing subsidy structure makes the best use of money and resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th January, 1968 ; Vol. 756, c. 1803.]
Thus, this important review was then still continuing apace with the full support of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. In May, 1969, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government announced that an internal review of housing finance was being carried out thoroughly in his Department.
Then we got the first hint of what was to come out of this review. It was on such hints that I based my view that the principles which would be pursued by the Labour Party would not be very different from those in my White Paper. This comment was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, then Parliamentary Secretary in a speech in another place :
I do not claim that the housing subsidy system is perfect ; indeed, I freely admit that it is very imperfect and has been for a long time. That is why the Housing Ministers have instituted a major review of the whole of housing finances, public and private sectors alike. Mr. Crossman's suggestion about paying subsidy to people rather than on bricks and mortar has been mentioned by more than one speaker. … This is very much in the forefront of the study I have mentioned. The study is really a fundamental one. This is an enormously difficult subject. We are. within the Government, going at it 'hell for leather' at this moment and we hope shortly to come out with proposals for the largest overhaul of housing finance since the present system was instituted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House o1 Lords, 2nd December, 1969; Vol. 306, c. 61.]
Since the election, of course, we have had comment on a national rent rebate


scheme. How remarkable it is that a review started in 1965, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer showing great interest in January, 1968, and the Minister of State saying that it was well under way in May, 1969, and the Parliamentary Secretary saying that they were going for it "hell for leather" in December, 1969, did not get a glimmer of mention in the Labour Party's manifesto in June, 1970. For a party which last week put down a Motion condemning us for coming to a conclusion in nine months, that is a very remarkable position.
I am told seemingly, judging by interruptions last week, that the principles I am pursuing are different from those of the Opposition. We must ask them to make clear today where they stand. Are they in favour of a national rebate scheme or against it? Are they in favour of a national rebate scheme that applies to the private sector as well as to the public sector? Will they vote against such a scheme which brings in 2½ million people whom they left out when they were in office? Would they bring in the 40 per cent. of local authorities which did not have any rebate schemes previously?
The right hon. Member for Grimsby has referred to the freedom of the local authorities. Would he allow local authorities to pursue rent policies without any rebate scheme or would he bring in a scheme of this sort? What is his policy about the future basis of rents? Would it be fair rents in the public sector? The Opposition said that it would be fair rents in the private sector. What is the gap of discrimination they wish to have between public and private rented accommodation?
Would it be based on historic costs in England and Wales, as we propose in Scotland? If so, there would be big anomalies which would not help some of the worst areas of housing in England and Wales. What would they do about furnished tenancies? Would they change their policy, which they pursued for six years, and suggest that all these furnished tenancies, particularly those where the occupier lives in, should be rent-controlled? If they did that, many units of accommodation would be lost.
What do the Opposition suggest for more help for slum clearance? Would

they change the basis and go over to subsidising people in the houses, as was suggested, by implication, by Lord Kennet in 1969? We should know the facts. The Labour Party should be clear about which system of rents they would pursue instead of just making party political advantage about anyone who gets a rent increase under our proposals.
This is not a reactionary proposal that we are bringing forward in the White Paper. It is, as many observers have said, the most radical reform of housing this century. When it comes to the crunch, whether it be in industrial relations or in housing, it is the Labour Party which is now the reactionary party. We are putting forward a scheme which will help the poor far more lavishly than the Opposition have ever dreamed of helping them. Our policy will encourage more owner-occupation. It will help to clear the slums at an ever-increasing rate. It will increase our stock of housing at a faster rate than ever before. For all these reasons, I commend the White Paper to the House.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: We lost two hours from the beginning of this debate and I regret to say that we have now lost another half-hour from the time which might have been spent on serious discussion. I timed the right hon. Gentleman. Fifteen minutes of his speech were spent on the proposals in the White Paper, ten minutes on highly selective and amusing quotations from newspapers, almost all of them Tory—[Interruption.]—The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Economist—all well known Labour newspapers of course! The last ten minutes of his speech he spent, no doubt flatteringly, although this is not the purpose of the debate, trying to discuss our policy when, apparently, he still thinks he has another three years in office. Yet what the House is concerned with today is his own announced policy.
I do not suggest that the present system, now being reformed, is anything like perfect—of course it is not. There are considerable anomalies and inequities within the council house sector, between the council house sector and the private rented sector, and the distribution of subsidies is not such as to bring the most help to areas which need the help most.


So I wholly agree—and this was the purpose of our review of housing finance—that the present system needs to be reformed. What we challenge is the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing forward to do so.
I begin with the central proposal, which is the proposal for so-called fair rents in the council house sector, a proposal that will affect 5½ million families, or roughly 30 per cent. of all households in the country. This is an imposition by law. Councils are to be compelled to charge fair rents. This is another far cry from the famous words we used to hear about greater freedom for local authorities.
Under the Tories, the local authorities are now not only to be deprived of the right to pay from the rates for free milk for children between 7 and 11 years of age ; they are not only being deprived, as in the case of Barnet and Surrey, of the right to go comprehensive if they so desire, despite the great stories right hon. Gentlemen opposite told about greater local freedom ; they are also losing practically all their control over their rent policies. Rent policy in effect is now to be determined in Whitehall and the local authorities are to be merely the agents of Whitehall. One of the principal housing functions of local authorities is to be taken away and they are to have virtually no discretion as to their own rent policies. This is a particularly serious matter, since local government reorganisation also due to go through this autumn will introduce a large number of new district councils with only housing as their prime responsibility. This further attack on the independence of authorities, and particularly what I said about district councils, is one of the reasons for the hostile reaction, which the right hon. Gentleman did not quote in his Press quotations, from the local government bodies which so far have spoken on the subject.
Fair rents ought to be the central feature of our debate. There are overwhelming objections to the principle of so-called fair rents in the council house sector. First, the proposal has no logic. I mention this first because Ministers, and the right hon. Gentleman did so again this afternoon, have constantly used the argument that because my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East

(Mr. Crossman) introduced fair rents for the private rented sector under the Rent Act, 1965, it followed as a matter of logic that they should also be applied to the public rented sector. I believe that it does not follow in the slightest degree.
Fair rents in the private sector are designed to give a landlord a reasonable profit to provide for good maintenance and improvement and to eliminate scarcity values in places like London. But there is no parallel requirement in the public sector for the obvious reason that the public sector has a large and varied stock of housing of different dates and can spread costs over its entire stock. So fair rents are not needed to provide for good maintenance and improvement. Indeed—and I shall revert to this—in many parts of the country fair rents will actually provide a large surplus on the housing revenue account far beyond what is needed for good maintenance and improvement. Therefore, the arguments about the private sector cannot be transferred by analogy to the public sector.
The difference between the two sectors was analysed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its report published in 1968. I quote :
It would seem anomalous to relate the rents of the growing"—
public sector
to those of the declining"—
private sector—
and this anomaly would increase with the years, so that as a long-term principle the concept is likely to lose its validity. Finally, 'fair' rents so defined are not directly related to costs. We are not therefore disposed to accept this as an appropriate criterion.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has again and again rightly referred to the many differences between the private and public rented sectors. Therefore, my first objection is simply one of logic—that there is no logic in the proposal to apply in the public sector a basis which bears no relation to costs and no relation to the need for good maintenance and improvement.
My second objection to fair rents is basic. It is that they are wildly inflationary. At present, the level of standard unrebated rents in the council house sector is £2.25. We are never given an estimate by Ministers of what the average standard fair rents will be, but many


estimates have nevertheless been made, and they do not differ greatly. The Economist this week—not quoted on this point by the right hon. Gentleman—the comments of the U.D.C.A. on the White Paper, those of the Borough Treasurer of Hemel Hempstead, and many other people have agreed that standard fair rents will be at least double the average standard rent of today.

Mr. Skinner: So does the Evening Standard today.

Mr. Crosland: So, apparently, does the Evening Standard ; I was not aware of that.
In other words, we are to have an average increase in rent of about 100 per cent., and it will certainly be more in some areas. If new houses and flats are to be fair rented immediately, we shall find ourselves faced in London, for example, with standard rents of £10 to £12 and conceivably even more.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Frank Allaun rose——

Mr. Crosland: I am worried about the lack of time ; we have already lost two hours and many hon. Members wish to speak, and I hope my hon. Friend will be among those who do speak. It would probably be better if I pushed on, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way. Certainly no discourtesy is intended to him if I do not give way.
It is true that the movement to fair rents will be phased and that there is a limit of 50p a year as a maximum increase in average rents. But, even phased, it is a very drastic increase indeed in a central and particularly sensitive price the price of housing. It means in effect an increase of 25 per cent. a year until the present average rents are brought up to the level of fair rents, and in many instances after the three years have passed the fair rents will be raised still further under the procedure for a three-yearly review.
I do not know what effect the Government think this increase will have on inflation. It would be interesting to know the views of the C.B.I., now trying to persuade its members to limit price increases to 5 per cent. a year, when it discovers that the Government are deliberately

increasing one of the most critical prices in the country by 25 per cent. a year.
It would be interesting to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think that this increase will operate in the opposite direction to his announcement about purchase tax this afternoon. I believe that this huge increase in rents, incidentally coming on top of a 14 per cent. increase in rates this year, will make achievement of the Chancellor's anti-inflationary policy much harder.
My third objection concerns the rebate scheme. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension about the Labour Party's worries. The worry about the new rebate scheme does not relate mainly to the principle of a national scheme—that is no doubt a matter about which people can take different views. The point of principle is that now for the first time we are to have a rebate scheme which will clearly cover the majority of tenants. Whether it is local or national, it is the coverage which matters.
We had rebate schemes under the Labour Government of course—in rents and many other directions—and the right hon. Gentleman gave a figure of 1·35 million council tenants who were means tested either for rebates or by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. But that has nothing to do with the rebate scheme which we are now discussing. We are now talking of something qualitatively entirely different, of a rebate scheme which for the first time will cover those on average earnings and higher than average earnings. The White Paper makes it plain in many of the tables that a family on £30 a week will be eligible for rebates. In other words, we shall have a situation in which means testing will be applied to a clear majority of council tenants, and I maintain that this is a totally new departure in our social policy.
It raises an issue of principle—whether it is right that standard rents should be set at a level that the worker with average earnings cannot pay without rebate. It raises an issue of practice, a point which came out in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—whether there will be a reasonable take-up of these rebates, because if there is not there will be acute hardship among many hundreds of thousands of


tenants. The omens for take-up so far are not good. The numbers in the G.L.C. are extremely low so far. My hon. Friends have mentioned the extremely low take-up of the family income supplement and rent rebate schemes in different parts of the country.
I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his supposition that the take-up will be adequate, but I feel strongly that we must monitor the position as the years go on. Unrebated rents are going up by so much that we shall have to monitor the position to see the effect on family household spending and to see what the take-up is year by year.
Another practical consequence will be the very large large increase in local authority staffs. Local authorities will now have to set fair rents for 5,500,000 houses. On top of that, they will have to operate a rebate scheme on a far larger scale than ever before, and on top of that they will have to administer the new private rent allowance for the private sector—the monumental task of verifying the rents with landlords and checking and making cash payments to private tenants. After all we used to hear—we hear much less now—about the drastic cuts in the size of the bureaucracy which would be made under the present Government, it will be interesting to know what increase in local authority staff will be necessary.

Mr. Julius Silverman: For fair rents and for family income supplements.

Mr. Crosland: Yes.
The point has also been made—and the right hon. Gentleman did not argue it away—about incentives. It is not only rent rebates but rebates for school meals, prescription charges, dental charges, welfare milk, rate rebates, and so on. As the Government put up the charges, so the number eligible for rebates constantly increases. As many have pointed out, we are finding now, or soon will find, that large groups of workers in particular income brackets face, if their incomes rise, a loss of income at the margin of 100 per cent. First of all they lose the family income supplement. Then they pay income tax and what are now sharply graduated National Insurance contributions.

Then one by one they lose their eligibility for rebates. Many calculations have been done showing that as family incomes rise from £15 to £25 a week almost the whole of the increase is lost.
My next objection—and this is a point not touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman—is to do with the social effects of fair rents on council housing. The Government are frank about what they intend. They intend that many better-off tenants should be driven out of council houses into buying their own houses, whether or not they want to. This is at a time when house prices are rising rapidly and when, as the managing director of the Freshwater Group reminded us last week, the amount of private rented accommodation is continually declining. I do not believe that this is right.
Apart from anything else, it pushes us back to the discredited concept of one class housing for the deserving poor. Until 1949 the legislation about council housing contained the phrase "the working classes". Local authorities were restricted by law to providing houses for "the working classes". This phrase was removed from legislation by Aneurin Bevan in 1949, when he was in charge of housing, in an effort to secure a better balance on our municipal housing estates.
One of the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's policy will be to push us back to the pre-war position by deliberately forcing the better paid and, frankly, the better tenant into buying his own house whether or not he wants to. I object to that.
My next objection, and this is a central feature of the White Paper which merited only a couple of minutes from the right hon. Gentleman, is that the effect of all his changes will mean a sharp redistribution of income, and generally in the wrong direction. We cannot put exact figures on this because the White Paper is almost totally devoid of figures, other than tables giving examples of income. But we can certainly tell what the general direction is. Council tenants will pay much more in rent than they do now and, as a direct consequence, the national taxpayer will save about £150 million in subsidies as compared with what would otherwise have been the case. That is the first and most obvious transfer.
Local authorities, council tenants and ratepayers will take over more and more responsibility for the relief of poverty. When the housing revenue account is in surplus, as a result of fair rents, it will be expected to meet the cost of rent rebates, including much of the cost now paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. When the housing revenue account is in deficit, the rates will have to meet part of the cost of paying rent rebates. After 1975 the ratepayer will also meet part of the cost—20 per cent.—of private rent allowances. This attracted no discussion in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—whether it is right that so much of the social service element in housing, so much of the burden of relieving poverty, should be borne not by central government but by the local rent and ratepayer.
In all this, largely unnoticed, and again not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, a new principle has been inserted. Local authority housing is now not merely not to receive a general subsidy. It is not even to be left as a nonprofit-making service, getting an adequate return on capital to cover good maintenance and improvement. Instead, over much of the country, it is to make a large profit out of rent income, of which half will go to the Exchequer. We have therefore a wholly new principle, that over substantial parts of the country the Government will for the first time make a profit out of local authoriy housing. Over large parts of the country council house tenants, far from receiving subsidies, will themselves be subsidising the taxpayer.
In other words, my council tenants in my constituency of Grimsby will pay not merely taxes—it is only right that they should pay taxes for good national purposes—but they will also pay, through their rents, for a surplus in the housing revenue account half of which will be taken by the right hon. Gentleman and used for whatever purpose he wants. This is a wholly new principle in British housing policy.
The Minister of Housing and Construction gave a Press conference on the day the White Paper was published and he said :
This White Paper is in the great reforming tradition of Shaftesbury, Disraeli and Butler.
The right hon. Gentleman has four heroes, it would seem—Shaftesbury,

Disraeli, Butler and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East. It is a curious choice of personalities. Shaftesbury with his unbending, puritan prejudice combined with profound compassion—I can think of no present-day politician less like Shaftesbury than the right hon. Gentleman.
There may be a closer resemblance with Disraeli, whose great social reforms existed far more in fancy and fiction than ever they did in fact. Then there is Lord Butler, happily alive, whose entire life has been devoted to combating those trends in the Tory Party which the right hon. Gentleman represents. As for my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East—I hesitate to say it, but perhaps there is some resemblance there, at least in their power to take one's breath away. However, more seriously, at his Press conference the right hon. Gentleman made the extraordinary remark that this was in the best traditions of the Conservative Party—" From each according to his ability to each according to his need." How anyone could use that language in good faith after the examples I have given of the redistribution of income involved in the White Paper, I cannot conceive.
The worst inequity has yet to come, and we had better face this frankly, because we seldom do and the right hon. Gentleman did not do so in his speech today. It is that we shall now have five and a half million families, council tenants, receiving no help unless means tested. Yet the owner-occupier will continue to receive mortgage tax relief without a means test, regardless of need and regardless of capacity. I fail to see how this squares with the right hon. Gentleman's quotation.
We should be more precise about this point and it ought to have more discussion in the House. The owner-occupier is now relieved of Schedule A taxation. If he is a mortgagee he receives tax relief which amounts to more in total and more per house than the present, let alone the future, level of subsidy to council house tenants. Far from being means tested or related to means this tax relief is greater the larger the income and the more costly the house. His initial payments are higher, but the real costs of his mortgage payment diminish with time as a


result of inflation and, at the end of the day, he has a capital asset which has greatly increased in value and the capital gains on which are untaxed. Apart from that, he has much greater security and much greater freedom.
Meanwhile, the council house tenant—to the surprise of a lot of people, to judge from coarse propaganda that we hear—actually pays rates which will in future help to pay the private rent allowances. He will pay fair rents which will help to pay rent rebates and part of which will in future go to the Exchequer. He pays taxes without tax relief which help to provide relief for the owner-occupier. He pays rents which rise with inflation. He has no capital asset at the end and he can only receive help after a means test.
As has continually been made clear, this party is strongly in favour of owner-occupation. It was the Labour Government, not a Tory Government, which introduced the option mortgage scheme. It was the Labour Government which paid more sums in local authority mortgage payments during their years of office than the Tories did in the corresponding previous years ; I have checked the figures today, and I have them here. It was under a Labour Government that for the first time 50 per cent. of households consisted of owner-occupiers. Therefore, I need not give all the reasons why we are in favour of owner-occupation, such as that it is good for savings, good for self-reliance, gives freedom to redecorate, and so on. I welcome all the help which has been given to owner-occupiers. But surely it is then wholly inequitable to slash subsidies to council tenants in the way proposed in this White Paper.
I turn from the council house sector to the private rented sector. The Secretary of State asked for our attitude to the new private rent allowance. I strongly welcome it. The position of the private tenant has worsened both absolutely and relatively over the last few years. His rent has often risen as a result of the 1965 Act. His choice has become more limited as landlords have switched from unfurnished to furnished accommodation. Meanwhile help for both owner-occupiers and, until this White Paper, council tenants has substantially increased. It was a great injustice that the private tenant alone was receiving no help.
However, I have two reservations. First, it is quite wrong that after 1975 20 per cent. of the cost of the private rent allowance should fall on local government. This will be a rapidly rising bill because of the faster move to fair rents in the private rented sector. I believe that the relief of poverty in the private sector at least should be the responsibility of central Government and not of the local ratepayer, particularly at a moment when rates are under heavy pressure ; they rose 14 per cent. this year. The general problem of rates and local government finance is so acute that we are promised a Green Paper in the next few days.
Secondly, as the Secretary of State thought I would say, I believe it is wrong that furnished tenants are excluded from the new allowance. I do not believe it right for the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State to go round the country, as the hon. Gentleman did this weekend, saying that it is too complicated and somebody else should suggest a scheme. It is the Government's job to get over administrative complications.
The furnished tenant pays the highest price per room for the worst accommodation. He has the least security and the lowest average income of any housing group. The Secretary of State said that the Labour Party had not taken a stand on the question of security of tenure for the furnished tenant. That is wrong. If he reads the evidence given to the Francis Committee, he will find official evidence given by the Labour Party in favour of security of tenure. It is wrong that the furnished tenant should be excluded both from rent protection and from the new private rent allowance. Not only is he alone excluded—and he is the poorest in all the groups of people concerned—from any financial aid under the new White Paper, but his taxes will help to pay for the benefits which go to other substantially better off sectors. How this is to be reconciled with the saying "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" I leave the right hon. Gentleman to calculate.
I wish to say a word or two about the effect of the new policies on the rate of council building. It is impossible to assess this accurately from the White Paper because there is no breakdown in the White Paper of the future subsidy


bill. Incidentally, the White Paper refers to "current prices". I hope that I have not misunderstood it and that it does not mean that the value of the subsidies will fall automatically as a result of inflation. I should have thought that the White Paper should have referred to "constant prices" rather than "current prices". I hope that we can be reassured on this point and I hope that I am not being unnecessarily alarmist.
However, the subsidies will remain at their present level roughly of £220 million. What we do not know is how that figure will be divided between the cost of rent rebates, of the private rent allowance, of the various transitional subsidies, of the slum clearance subsidy and of the rising cost subsidy. Unless we have a breakdown of the total of Government aid, we cannot ascertain the effects on house building. I hope that we shall have some more information on this matter when the Minister replies.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The White Paper prices are "constant prices".

Mr. Crosland: I am much obliged.
The Secretary of State says, and he has repeatedly said it, that the new policies will speed up slum clearance. I devoutly hope that he is right. I think that he is right in principle in concentrating relatively more of the aid on the areas with the worst slums or the greatest need, although the total of the aid is too small. Nevertheless, I remain anxious about the effect on total council house building. We cannot forget, although the right hon. Gentleman would like us to forget, his remarks in opposition on the subject of council house building in his famous what I call "for all sorts of seemingly good purposes" speech in June, 1969. He said :
… the stock of 30 per cent. of housing now in local authority hands is far too high …".
This represents the right hon. Gentleman's view. If it does not, he should never have made that speech. That speech, which I read in full about six months ago—it is not a selective quotation—shows a strong belief that, relatively speaking, the amount of council housing should drop as a proportion of the total. That makes me anxious.
Moreover, the Government's proposals do not do anything to remove what are often the most critical obstacles to slum clearance and urban renewal—the shortage of land, the structure of local government, and so on. They may help the Inner London boroughs within their own boundaries. I hope that they do. But the Inner London boroughs cannot solve their housing problems without help and land from the outer boroughs, and there is nothing in these proposals which will enable that help to be more freely given.
The other point about the effect on house building is that these proposals come at a time when the trend of public house building is still downwards, as it has been ever since the Tory landslide in the local government elections in 1968. We keep on hearing, especially from the Minister for Housing and Construction, wildly optimistic statements about what is happening to house building, and they always evoke loud cheers from Conservative back-bench Members who naively suppose that there has been some revolution in the state of affairs since the right hon. Gentleman took office.
It is true—and I am glad that it is—that private house building is encouragingly on the increase. But the position is different in the public housing sector, as the Minister must know. The recent Report of the National Economic Development Office of 9th July states :
Output"—
in the public housing sector—
is now expected to fall 11·5 per cent. in real terms in 1971 and to flatten out in 1972.
This is a highly depressing outlook. I hope that the Government's proposals will alter the situation. I also hope that the election of large numbers of Labour Party councillors will alter the situation. The trouble is that they will not have the money to do what they want. Nevertheless, I have strong fears that the effects of these proposals will be bad, not merely for equity or for the tenants, but for the total rate of house building.
There are individual proposals in the White Paper which we welcome, such as the private rent allowance, greater concentration of help in the areas of need, and paragraph 35 dealing with security of tenure for council tenants. I certainly accept the need for a total review of housing finance. [HON. MEMBERS :


"Oh."] I said that at the beginning of my speech, and I have said it at the end. What we on this side of the House reject are the main financial features of the Government's proposals. The furnished tenant—the poorest of all—comes off worst. The owner-occupier, who on the whole is the best off, will come off best. He alone receives non-means-tested aid from the Exchequer. The council tenant is faced not only with large increases in rent but with the prospect of subsidising the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the housing revenue account.
I believe that these features of the proposals are damaging socially, damaging economically, and damaging in terms of housing policy. That is why we on this side of the House shall vote against the proposals tonight.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: If I may respectfully say so to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), he made the very, very best of a very, very bad case. As an example of making bricks without straw, it was admirable. Unfortunately, one of his bricks, when he compared his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) with my right hon. Friend, had the effect of sending the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East scuttling from the Chamber.
This White Paper, on which I once again, most respectfully, congratulate my right hon. Friend, sets out the problems resulting from our housing policies hitherto, and sums them up briefly on page 1. These policies
take too little account of the need to keep the existing stock of houses in good heart.
They have provided
too little help for people in need.
And they are
fundamentally unfair. They take from people who can ill afford it to give to others who, by comparison, often have no need of help at all.
So, says the White Paper,
… the time has come for a radical change in housing policy. Nothing less will create the conditions for a final assault on the slums, the overcrowding, the dilapidation and the injustice that still scar the housing scene.
It is about one of these that I later wish to say what will be only a very few words.

Why is there this need for a change in policy? Whether the Opposition accepts the need for change, I do not know. We learn that in the public sector the
Existing subsidies for new buildings are indiscriminate.
We learn that
90 per cent of the housing subsidies"—
of £220 million—
was used to reduce the general level of rent regardless of the need of tenants. Only 10 per cent. was used to grant rent rebates to poorer tenants. As a result many in need received little or no help.
We learn that
The present system provides subsidy for housing authorities which do not need it.
We learn that the burden of the subsidies is unfairly distributed because
many taxpayers who pay their share of Exchequer housing subsidies (and all taxpayers do so), and many ratepayers who meet the cost of rate fund contribution?, are poorer and worse housed than the council tenants whom they subsidise.
We learn that
The present system has produced a pattern of rents which varies unfairly between the tenants of one authority and another
because only about half the housing authorities operate rent rebate schemes, so that all the tenants of the other half are subsidised, whatever their means.
We learn that,
In the private sector rent control was introduced to protect the tenant. … The rent of private tenants subject to rent control has not moved since 1957. … Many landlords of controlled tenants are poorer than the tenants who enjoy a very low rent at the landlord's expense.
So rents are to go up)—and 2½ million tenants who now get no help are to be helped if they need it.
What I want to know is, do the Opposition deny that these are the drawbacks of our present policies? If not, do the Opposition think they are acceptable? If not, what will the Opposition do to change the policies? Probably they would do nothing because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said in an admirable article yesterday, the Labour Party assumes that all council tenants are poor and all landlords rich and they like to pauperise their fellow citizens.
I would like the Opposition to answer three questions. What proportion of a man's income does the Labour Party


consider it reasonable that he should have to pay to keep a roof over his own head and that of his family?

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: What does the hon. Member think?

Mr. Longden: I will tell you on another occasion. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I want to know what the Labour Party thinks. I have my own idea of what a man could be reasonably expected to pay for the roof over his head.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Longden: No. I want to know what the Labour Party thinks. The second question I ask the Labour Party is this : Can any Member of the Labour Party tell me why he considers that any man under the age of retirement who is neither physically or mentally disabled should expect that the rent, or any part of the rent, of the home which he himself has chosen should as a matter of course be paid for by his fellow citizens? And the third question I would ask the Labour Party is why it considers that any man who is unable to fend for himself in this matter should expect to get such help from his fellow citizens without proving his need?
The Labour Party is constantly talking of the Prime Minister dividing the nation into two. I believe that the two nations which have been produced by the Labour Party are these : section A, people who are prepared to stand on their own feet ; and section B, people who, after six years of war and 12 years of Labour Government, have grown to expect other people to do these things for them. We must hope that section A is in the great majority.
But of all the injustices "that still scar the housing scene" none is worse than the control of rents of small properties owned by the small man, or woman, who has chosen to invest his savings in real property rather than in stocks and shares or the Post Office and who has for 50 years been prevented from charging a rent which will allow him to keep the property in decent repair and to enjoy a reasonable return on his capital. For years in this House I have been pleading that man's cause. On 14th June, 1968, in an Adjournment debate, I used these words :

I make no apology for raising the matter again today. In so doing, I have no interest whatever to declare except the interest which every Member of Parliament should have in fighting injustice and in striving to redress the justifiable grievances of Her Majesty's subjects. Unfortunately for them—
these particular subjects—
are too unorganised, uninfluential and scattered to have much electoral significance, and unfortunately, too, they now have a Government who react pathologically to the word 'landlord' and who have no great love for private property in any form. I have never understood why, just because a man has chosen to invest his savings in house property rather than in equities or gilt-edged securities he should be presumed to be a Rachman, nor why. since some tenants need to be subsidised, it should be at the exclusive expense of some of their fellow citizens rather than by us all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June. 1968; Vol. 776, c. 665.]
This was summed up rather neatly by the Daily Telegraph last August :
Suppose a citizen found himself singled out by the State and told that, by virtue of his having a car, he must give regular lifts to a certain non-motorist as long as the latter wanted them. Suppose that the motorist was told that he must charge less than cost for this service. Suppose further that this arrangement was to stand regardless of the passenger's means. The unfortunate victim would, reasonably, suppose that officialdom had succumbed to extreme malice or total derangement.
In February, 1970, I wrote to my right hon. Friend, then the Shadow Minister, and again last September, quoting, among other things, The Times comment in a leader of 26th August, 1970:
The persistence of these controlled tenancies in their present form is a disgrace to successive Governments. They are a forced subsidy of one private person by another who may be no better placed financially, and they hasten the decay of part of the nation's housing stock.
My right hon. Friend replied to me on 7th September making it perfectly clear that he fully understoood this and as soon as possible was going to do something about it and he has been as good as his word and I am very grateful to him for that.
There are four things I should like to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention as a vice-president of the U.D.C. Association. That association suggests these points, which I think have already been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby, but I would reiterate them. I simply put these points to my right hon. Friend for his attention, not necessarily agreeing with them. The


association's first suggestion is that subsidies should be phased out over a longer period than my right hon. Friend proposes. The second is that the cost of rent allowances in the private sector should be borne wholly by the Exchequer. The third that the Secretary of State should be able to give special help to areas where his proposals produce exceptional rate burdens. Lastly, the association would like a slower progression to fair rents than is proposed by my right hon. Friend. In regard to that last point, however, now that a method has been devised of subsidising the poorest tenants who cannot afford to pay a fair rent, I hope that there will be no unnecessary delay in implementing these reforms.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester: As so many hon. Members wish to speak, I will endeavour to take only a few minutes of the time of the House. I regarded it as a little unfair that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), who has made such a great study of the question of what proportion of a person's income should be paid in rent, did not give us the benefit of his deep thought.
The hon. Member went on to ask us how much a person should get from his fellow citizens without proving need. I accept that there are times when we need a means test. It is the type of means test which makes the difference between hon. Members opposite and those of us on this side. I would ask the hon. Member, however, whether we ought not to think in terms of owner-occupiers having a tax relief on their mortgages in the opposite direction, so that the poorer they are the greater the tax relief and the richer they are the less relief they get on their mortgage. This, surely, would be in keeping with the arguments that the hon. Member put before the House.
I understand that the aim of the Government's legislation is to stabilise the subsidies which the Government will be paying. The subsidies will be shared with others in the private sector. It must, therefore, follow that many people must pay considerably more so that the subsidies can be spread over a greater number of people.
No one has suggested, however, exactly how many people will get subsidies. I understand that it is extremely difficult to calculate the figure. How is it possible, therefore, for the Government to estimate exactly how much they will save on the amount of subsidies that will be paid? If they cannot do the one sum, it must be rather difficult to find the answer to the final sum.
If rents are to rise every three years, as is provided for in the White Paper, without any reference to the housing revenue account, what criteria will be laid down? Will it be simply a question of keeping up with the cost of living or with the rate of inflation? Will the aim be to stabilise the subsidies which the Government have to find, or will it be done at the whim of rent officers? If it is done at the whim of rent officers, there could be one of two effects. Either the rent officer will apply a figure for rent which will give considerably more money and, therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, the housing revenue accounts will create a much greater profit for the Government to spend, or there could be the opposite effect of reducing the amount of money in the housing revenue accounts, with the result that the Government have to find much bigger subsidies to meet the new situation.
My right hon. Friend referred also to the cost. Clearly, a small army of administrators will be needed to check all kinds of things and to investigate every anonymous letter that will be delivered to every housing manager's office. I wonder whether the Government have worked out how much this will cost and whether it will be worth imposing this kind of extra expenditure on housing revenue accounts.
So far, the Government have not put forward a case for dealing with inflation. With swingeing increases in rent, there will clearly be big wage demands. It might well be argued that it is not only council tenants who have been subsidised in the past, but that the whole of British industry has been subsidised by ratepayers and taxpayers, who have kept down rents. Anybody who thinks that trade unionists will not apply for wage increases when a man faces a £2 increase in his rent is living in the proverbial land from whence the cloud cuckoo comes.
This will be the direct effect of the Government's policy. Whereas rises in rents may be selective, wage increases which follow from increases in rents will not be selective but will be right across the board. One might well argue, therefore, that the Government are creating an inflationary situation in which everybody gets a wage increase so that a selected number of people can pay higher rents. This will not do very much good to the Chancellor's plans for the economy.
I am sure that the Government have studied the article in yesterday's Sunday Times, which suggested that some people would need an 18½ per cent. wage increase to enable them even to stand still. I wonder whether the Government have decided that that is a reasonable figure or whether they hope that their proposals will lead to something less than that.
I come to the social question. I understand that the aim of the Government's proposals is to force people into owner-occupation, but this will have the result of driving out of the pool of council housing those who can afford to pay an economic or a profitable rent. Eventually, we shall be left with only those who require rebates occupying council housing. The effect of this will be quite dramatic on the country as a whole.
One is tempted to ask how long it will be before local authorities are left with only tenants who require rebates, because if the rent increases are of a certain size, anybody who has the wherewithal will change to owner-occupation. When we reach that stage and we are left only with people who require rebates, we shall be back to the present situation, in which all tenants may receive a subsidy of some kind.
What instructions will the Government give to local authorities in allocating houses to make sure that we do not reach the stage, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby suggested, that they may be tempted to channel the poorest tenants—those who require the biggest rebates—into special areas, into their poorest houses and their poorest areas? How shall we prevent local authorities from creating ghettos for the poor in our major cities?
The social problems flowing from that would be enormous and might well far

outweigh any saving in money that the Government may have in mind. Indeed, it is quite possible that other departments—Health, Social Security and Education, for example—would have to spend more money to counterbalance the problems that will have been created by the Government's proposals.
If that is to happen, will the Minister consult local authorities to make sure that there is much greater freedom of transfer, not only between local authority housing, but also between private and local authority housing? I regard it as a gross injustice that if a rent rebate scheme is in operation, a person should be condemned to live in a terrace-type house when he could live in a modern semidetached house with a garden round it for almost the same amount of rent. It seems that this one has not been thought out. Will not there be a feeling of bitterness in peoples' minds when they find that through no fault of their own, they are left in an old terraced house when their friends pay very little more rent but live in better surroundings?
I should like to make a constituency point. On pages 3 and 4 of the White Paper, the Minister makes great claims for the house improvement scheme—and it has many things to commend it—but before the Housing Bill comes back from the House of Lords, will he look again at the question of the 75 per cent. grant? It is difficult to understand why there should be a 75 per cent. grant for the improvement of a house in an unemployment area and only 50 per cent. in another area. This is extremely difficult to justify.
Different areas have different problems. The problems in one area are no less acute than the problems in another,  no less in need of urgent solution. If the Minister cannot look at the whole country, will he look at the areas included in the Local Employment Act, 1970 which were defined as having a special need because of the great amount of dereliction. Will he see whether those areas can be included in the 75 per cent. grant provision?
Will the Minister also look again at the question of the sale of council houses? I know that this is part of the political faith of hon. Members opposite, but I cannot see any sense in selling to a sitting tenant a house which costs £1,500 to build and replacing it by a


house which may cost £4,500. When the rent is subsidised, there may be some point in it, although I am not convinced.
A person in a £1,500 house will now have to pay a profitable rent to the housing revenue account. If he cannot afford a profitable rent he will not be able to get a mortgage anyway. If the house is sold to him, another house will have to be built to house someone on the waiting list. A person on the waiting list will get a local authority house only if he cannot afford to buy one.
What will happen is that the authority will sell a cheap house and build a dear house and, instead of charging £3 a week for the one it has sold to the sitting tenant, it will charge the newcomer £7 or £8 a week fair rent. Either that tenant will not come into the council house because he will buy his own house, or the local authority will be faced with having to allow a bigger rebate because of the difference between the cost of the two houses. Although the policy of selling council houses may have some merit when an authority has a surplus of houses, it has no merit when an authority has a deficit of houses, especially when the new rent policy drives tenants into owner-occupation.
The Minister quoted paragraph 18 (viii) of the White Paper, which proposes that local authorities should be allowed to pay legal expenses. If local authorities are to pay legal expenses for tenants in corporation houses, will it not be equally just for them to pay legal expenses for people in slum houses who prefer to buy their houses rather than take up local authority accommodation?
The Minister has a problem, as I have no doubt my right hon. Friend had a problem, but this is a crude, blunt instrument that has been fashioned. The Government are trying to bludgeon people into owner-occupation, with all the social and economic consequences which will follow. This is part of the Jekyll and Hyde character of the Government. Whilst they cry about the dangers of inflation, at the same time they bring in measures which give half-a-dozen twists to the inflationary spiral. This is such a measure. Many questions must be answered and many more refinements are necessary before hon. Members on this

side of the House can give their support to the White Paper.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I want to go back briefly to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the quality of the judgments and the decisions which the previous Socialist Administration took on housing. He was critical, as I am, of the lack of decision and the lack of positive policy in their endeavours to solve some of the problems in the desperately difficult housing situation with which the country is faced.
I will go back one stage further than my right hon. Friend and refer to the Report of the Working Party on Local Authority Housing Finance published in September, 1964. This was a highly powered, representative Committee, and the advocacy contained in its Report was accepted by the Housing Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I will quote from paragraph VII(vi):
There is need for a revised rent resources test, to take account of our findings on the distribution of subsidies and the rent-paying capacity of council tenants.
The previous Administration had that clearly definitive statement before them during all the years they were in office and they lacked the guts to implement it. The need is for resources. There is no possibility of solving the housing problem on the limited resources which have been available to us. That recommendation of substance which I have quoted was ignored by the Socialist Administration. They did not recognise the necessity for increased resources, and this was fundamental to the failure of their housing policy. One wonders to what extent they were trying to adjust their ideas to ensuring the least possible impact on the the tenants of council properties.
It was clear that there would not be adequate resources from the taxpayer. The taxpayer was required to meet the rising housing subsidies under the 1967 Act and, of course, the generous grants for improvement and conversion, but these measures were entirely inadequate to provide the necessary resources.
The Rent Act, 1965 showed a glimmer of light when it introduced the concept of fair rents. In terms of the philosophy of housing this was sound. On


Second Reading of that Bill in 1965 we were promised the beginning of the implementation of fair rents and their extension and development down the years, but we never moved from the original introduction of the proposals, despite the promises that were made from time to time.
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that there was no logic in taking fair rents into the public sector. With respect, we are not trying to deal with matters in terms of logic ; we are looking for the increased resources which are fundamental to solving the housing problem. It is the failure to recognise this which lies at the root of the failure of the previous Administration to solve the housing problem.
We need to look to council tenants, as we are looking to private tenants, to pay a fair rent if they are in a position to do so. If they are not, they get the benefit of the subsidies proposed in the White Paper. I believe that in this way we would ensure a tremendous increase in housing resources.
I should like to deal briefly with three points of detail in the White Paper. The first is dealt with in paragraph 46 and it relates to cash allowances to private tenants. In Appendix 2 the local authority is given the option of making a periodic payment to the tenant. I am sure this will help to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) about cutting down the amount of administrative detail. This also will assist in circumstances where a tenant is in difficulty in paying the rent to a landlord and will enable payments to be made direct. There should be some positive simplification in the arrangements. It will be a heavy administrative burden if a local authority is to be expected to make a weekly payment to a tenant.
Paragraph 4 of Appendix 2 deals with rent rebate, which is to be on either a five-weekly assessment basis or a two-monthly basis depending on whether the tenant is paid weekly or monthly. Rate rebate is calculated on a tenant's income six months in arrear. Employers will be asked to submit two different calculations, one for rent rebate and another for rate rebate. It would lead to considerable simplification if these two

assessments could be submitted at the same time.
I am not happy about paragraph 2 of Appendix 2 which provides for the allowance being based on only a proportion of the fair rent if the dwelling is much larger than the tenant requires, or is situated in an area of high property values where the tenant is living from choice rather than from necessity. There will surely not be many cases of that description where a local authority will be required to make a judgment. The local authority will be asked to make a difficult subjective judgment and I hope the Government will think again about this rather narrow and insignificant proposal in the White Paper.
I give a warm reception to the White Paper which mirrors the thinking of many hon. Members in the House. I am sure that great benefits will flow from these proposals.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the last three hon. Members for being reasonably brief. I hope that the practice will continue because there are still many hon. Members who wish to speak.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I hope to comply with your request, Mr. Speaker. At four o'clock this afternoon the Government made a statement on their attempt to restrain inflation and prices. And at six o'clock they introduced another statement which will double rents for millions of families. That is contradictory ; it is nonsense ; and it is hypocrisy. If the Government are genuine about keeping down prices they will have to scrap these rent increase proposals.
My main objection to the proposals—and I have many—is that they do not just provide for a redistribution of subsidy but that they will lead to a huge net reduction. The case might be argued for a redistribution, with increased subsidies for some and a reduction of subsidy for others. But this is not what the Government intend. Up to £200 million a year will be taken away and this inevitably will result in higher rents. I have consulted my city treasurer about this and he confirms as a fact that rents will be raised.
Why is the Minister doing this? I will quote page 2 of the White Paper :
Housing subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers cost, some £200 million in 1970–71. If


they continued their annual cost would increase over the next 10 years by at least £300 million … it would be a staggering addition to the nation's tax burden.
I repeat the words "a staggering addition". This is not so. The figure of £300 million is but 1½p in the £ of all Government and local government spending. The yearly increase would be only one-tenth of that, namely, 0·15p in the £ of all Government spending. That would be the figure if the Minister left subsidies as they were. That is hardly "a staggering increase". I believe that the Government should leave the subsidies alone. Before long, there will be crowds outside the Ministry with placards saying "Hands off the housing subsidies". The Government will find themselves in real trouble—and deservedly so.
Another feature of the proposals is that rents will be raised so high that the tenants will be forced to buy their own houses—either the houses in which they are living or other houses—because I do not think the Labour-controlled councils will want to sell council houses. Those tenants will be forced to buy their own homes even though they cannot afford mortgages. What will be the result? House prices will rise even more sharply than has been the case up to the present. This will be brought about because of the increased pressure on the houses available.
I now turn to the Minister's little trick. The newspapers have reprinted his tables showing how certain families paying £5 a week rent plus rates will receive £1 reduction. But what the tables conceal is that the £5 per week rent will be the new rent fixed under the Bill and not the existing rent which might be only £2. So with a rent of £5 a week, plus rates, even after taking away the rebate, the tenants will be worse off than they are at present. Some of them will get a rebate but most of the recipients will be paying more rent than now.
As regards the private landlord tenants some 1·3 million will lose their rent control and will come under the rent-fixing machinery instead. This will increase their rent on average to 2·6 times the present rents, as the figures we have extracted from the Ministry show. Another feature of the proposals is that landlords and tenants are to "agree" on rents. Everybody knows that because of the housing shortage landlords and tenants

are not equal bargainers. What will happen is that a landlord will say to a tenant who is applying for a house, "If you will agree to pay this rent I will give you a tenancy. If not, I will give it to some other tenant who will be more compliant."
As for the effects on house building, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) quoted rents of £10 for new houses. This is far above what a working man can afford. Therefore, council building programme will fall still further.
I turn to deal with Press comment. It is true that most newspapers think this is a wonderful scheme. Certainly economists think it is wonderful. Indeed, everybody thinks it is wonderful—everybody except the tenants who will have their rents doubled. I quote one publication which does not regard the scheme as wonderful, a paper that represents the real experts and has no party affiliation or bias. I refer to the Municipal and Public Services Journal of 16th July. It carries a whole page editorial which is almost wholly condemnatory of the scheme :
The immediate reaction from the A.M.C. and U.D.C.A. is one of cautious hostility … It seems inevitable now that the suspicions and resentments already being expressed in local government circles will boil up into a major row.
These two bodies are at present dominated by Conservative councils, so goodness knows what they will think when Labour gets control next May. The article ends :
It is hard to see in this 'fair deal' philosophy anything other than a deep contempt for the owners and tenants of nearly one-third of the nation's housing stock.
I challenge the Minister to come to the housing estates, face the tenants there, and tell them why he is doubling most of their rents. I believe that he and his right hon. Friend will go down in housing history as the men who tried to double rents and caused serious social disturbances on housing estates.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Trew: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) expressed fears about how the new rent system may work out in practice. So did his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). Though it is quite right that they should express


their fears, and though I know that the hon. Member has thought very deeply about these problems, I do not believe that either he or his right hon. Friend has sustained the case. In fairness and in justice I do not think that one can quarrel with a system that ends indiscriminate housing subsidies and redistributes them to those who really need them.
I was astonished to hear someone of the intellectual reputation of the right hon. Gentleman trying to argue on the ground of logic that we should retain the existing system whereby the level of rents is determined by the age of the housing stock ; that in an area where there are a lot of old houses there should be low rents, and in an area where there are new houses the rents should be higher.
I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that a large proportion of tenants would qualify for the new subsidy. If one considers the needs allowance and the formula for tapering off, one realises that family incomes of £30 and perhaps even of £40 a week could in some circumstances qualify for a rebate. When one further reflects that according to the Prices and Incomes Board Report on council rents about 35 per cent. of council tenants are in receipt of pension or other social security benefits which would almost by definition qualify them for some rebate, and that 70 per cent. of council tenants have family incomes of under £35 a week, it is fair to say that a substantial proportion of council tenants will qualify for rebate. One would not be far wrong in saying that about half of council tenants will qualify for a rebate of some sort. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain on the one hand that rents will be far too high and, on the other hand, say that too many people will qualify for rebates.
The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends spoke of an intention to bludgeon or force people into home ownership. We on this side make no apology for wanting to encourage home ownership. I certainly hope that one of the consequences of a gradual move to fair rents for better off council tenants will result in their deciding to buy homes of their own. One cannot spell out too often the advantages of home ownership. Nothing gives a family a greater sense

of security than to own the roof over its head. Houses are better maintained when privately owned. To take on the responsibility of a mortgage is to undertake one of the best long-term savings plans anyone has devised. It gives every family an almost sure hedge against inflation.
I welcome the references in the White Paper to the powers of local authorities to assist council tenants with removal expenses and conveyancing expenses when they want to buy. I should like to see local authorities go further, and bring to the notice of council tenants the advantages of home ownership—and not in any sense of compulsion.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must be careful not to put themselves in the position of trying to get council tenants to live in council accommodation whether they want to or not. The housing policy of any country must have some regard to the aspirations of the people. Any opinion survey will show that in Britain the answer is that the vast majority of people want to own their own homes.
Some years ago, when I was still prospective candidate for Dartford, we carried out a survey on a large council housing estate ; and asked a question not usually asked : "Do you believe that your children will be council tenants or own their own homes?" Of those interviewed. 80 per cent. believed that their children would live in their own homes. So when we are deciding what the relative balance between private and public building should be, we must have regard to the aspirations of the people.
There is a desperate need in some areas for large-scale building of low-cost housing, and in many cases councils are still the best authorities to undertake this work.
I welcome the proposals in the White Paper for slum clearance and rising cost subsidies. These will speed up and make easier the whole task of urban renewal. I believe that these measures, together with the provisions for home improvement, will be useful weapons in tackling what I believe is one of the great challenges of the 'seventies and 'eighties—the problem of transforming and renewing the decaying areas of our cities.
If we are to get the best out of these proposals we must get clear in our own


minds the answer to a number of questions. For instance, in urban renewal what is to be the relative rôle of local authorities, of the voluntary housing movement and of private enterprise? My understanding of the slum clearance subsidy, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, if that authorities will be able to apply it to land which they make available to the voluntary housing movement and to private enterprise. I hope that this is so.
Something else we must ask ourselves is whether private enterprise is to continue to build virtually only for sale or whether it will be possible in some way to encourage private enterprise to build for rent, but to encourage it in a way which lets it get ahead confident in the belief that a future Labour Government will not undo any proposals we introduce. I believe that the greatest single obstacle to giving some sort of encouragement to private enterprise to build for rent is the fixed and almost sacred belief of the party oppose that there is something evil and wicked in being a landlord unless that landlord happens to be the local authority.
Another question is : what are the relative advantages of improvement and rebuilding? To what extent can we reduce the rent levels, and reduce housing stresses by reducing the pressure of population in urban areas? What is the rôle that even more overspill schemes may play?
Finally, we must ask ourselves what our strategy for urban renewal is to be ; whether we are content to leave it largely to individual local authorities—even the much larger metropolitan authorities which emerge in local government reorganisation—or whether we believe that there should be wider co-ordination—and even ask ourselves the extent to which we feel my right hon. Friend's Department should issue positive guidance to local authorities in this task of urban renewal. An enormous challenge faces us, and I believe that the White Paper provides us with valuable tools for setting about the task. It injects more common sense and justice into housing than we have had for many years and I welcome it.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) has shown a quite touching belief in the virtues of public polls, and has indicated that he has been influenced by the results of his own do-it-yourself exercise in this direction. I hope that he will go back to Dartford and conduct another poll, asking his constituents, and particularly those who are council house tenants, what they think of the proposals in the White Paper.
As the representative of a constituency with a very large number of council tenants, I have found that every one of those to whom I have spoken sees the White Paper as a mean and squalid attack on the standard of living of people living in council houses. It may be that the details of the White Paper are imperfectly understood by my constituents and that when they become more familiar with it they may find some aspects of the proposals more acceptable. But if there is a great degree of misunderstanding, Ministers have only themselves to blame. Apart from the fact that repeatedly both the Minister for Housing and the Secretary of Stale have refused to answer quite simple questions from this side of the House about the details of the proposals, and that many of the details in the White Paper are couched in extremely opaque language, there seems to have been a total failure to consult any representatives of council tenants in drawing up the proposals.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that last Wednesday I put down five Questions to the Department concerned, the answers to which would have been valuable in this debate, but the Department refused to answer them.

Mr. Leonard: That confirms my point. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State said :
We have discussed the details of our plans with the local authority associations and the voluntary housing movement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 214–215.]
Not a word was said by the Secretary of State about consultations with the representatives of the 5½ million council tenants in this country. It may be argued that no single body exists which can claim to speak for those 5½ million tenants. But the same objection could


be made with regard to the voluntary housing movement. No single body could claim to represent that movement, yet consultations took place.
A number of highly respected and responsible organisations represent council tenants in different parts of the country. In London the Association of London Housing Estates, which represents tenants on 116 different estates in the Greater London area, is a body recognised by the Government and by the Greater London Council for grant aid under the urban programme. In Liverpool the Amalgamated Tenants' Associations Co-ordinating Committee represents the great majority of council-house estates in the city. Other similar bodies in different parts of the country could well have been consulted by the Government before these proposals were put forward. Would the Minister say whether there has been any consultation with representatives of tenant opinion? As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been none. I should like a definite answer on that point.
My second point is that last Tuesday the Secretary of State gave the House a figure. He said that council house rents during the period of the Labour Government had increased by no less than 65 per cent. He seemed to regard this as a justification for the further very large increase proposed in the White Paper. That seems extraordinary. I should have thought that it argued in exactly the opposite way. If there has already been an extremely sharp increase in council house rents during the last five or six years, surely that substantiates a case for a plateau to be established—for a period of restraint—during which these previous increases can be absorbed by the tenants concerned. It seems incredible that tenants should now be expected to face with equanimity the prospect of a further increase, on average, of about 100 per cent. over the next three or four years.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I see the logic of the hon. Gentleman's last point, but he will have to explain why we did not have an extreme reaction from his hon. Friend when the 65 per cent. increase was put on by his Government.

Mr. Leonard: I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I read the

newspapers and I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) protested, with rather less justification, as vigorously then as he has now. It is a total misrepresentation of his position to suggest that he did not do so.
My third point is that the Government appear to be guilty of a deception—unintentional, I hope—in labelling their formula a "fair rent" formula, implying that they are taking over the same formula applied by the Labour Government to private rents and applying it to the public sector. There is a crucial difference. Apart from the cogent objections to applying fair rents to the private sector, which were set out by the Prices and Incomes Board, there is a crucial difference between this formula and the one applied in the private sector. The characteristic feature of fair rents, as we know them, is that the individual tenant is able freely to negotiate with his landlord what his fair rent should be, and it can then be registered with the rent officer. Only if there is no agreement, or if the rent officer believes that the agreement arrived at is not a reasonable one, is a fair rent imposed. There is no procedure in the White Paper for tenants to play the same rôle in the public sector. Paragraph 32 states, in part :
The local authority will assess a fair rent for every dwelling. It will be free to consult the Rent Officer …
No provision is made for consulting the tenant, who has the right to object only after a provisional assessment has been published by the local authority.
This is an utterly different procedure from the fair rents applied to the private sector. If the Government do not want to be characterised as deliberately misleading the country on this point, they should quickly devise a new term for this entirely new procedure proposed. I have no suggestion to make as to what that term should be, but I give notice that until the Government come up with something more acceptable, I shall consistently refer to these rents as "unfair" rents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said that we do not regard the present system of rents in the public sector, and of housing subsidies, as immutable. There is, indeed, a very strong case for moving


towards a genuinely more rational and equitable system. The Government have failed to do something that they really should have done. They have failed to provide an explanation to the House and the country of why they have rejected the persuasive arguments of the Prices and Incomes Board in favour of historic cost rents. The suggestion of the Prices and Incomes Board seems, both logically and equitably, totally superior to this new proposal of the Government. The Government must attempt a refutation of the Prices and Incomes Board's argument if their own proposals are to carry any conviction.
Finally, there is a great deal of room for improvement in the provision and management of public sector housing. Many of the problems in this context were considered with great sensitivity two years ago by the Cullingworth Committee and valuable recommendations were contained in its Report "Council Housing—Purposes, Procedures and Priorities". Last Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) said :
Nothing further has been heard for over a year. When will the Government act on the Cullingworth Report, or has it been shelved? May we be told today …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1971 ; Vol. 821, c. 750.]
The Minister for Housing and Construction and the Under-Secretary of State subsequently spoke in the debate, but the specific question of my hon. Friend was totally ignored by both Ministers. So I repeat now, may we be told today what action the Government propose to take on the Cullingworth Report? Its recommendations are more relevant to the problems of council tenants—both actual and prospective—and they were based on far greater study and compassion and humanity than anything contained in the highly reactionary and objectionable White Paper which we are now debating.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last six speeches have averaged 10 minutes each. I hope that we shall keep that up.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: The criticisms which are being made of the White Paper show two things. They show,

first, the extraordinary difficulty the Opposition has had in making anything like a debating case against the White Paper. They show, second—I am sure that my Front Bench will have noticed it—the attempt to develop during the debate the suggestion that the White Paper will mean an enormous increase in rents of all council tenants. The assertion has been made in rather guarded language that the rents of council tenants will be doubled.
It is important that this myth should be strangled in the cradle. It will be developed into a large-scale myth unless we are careful to deal with it now. It is necessary to quote two figures which are given in the White Paper and which nobody has either disputed or tried to dispute. First, the average rent of council houses in England and Wales is £2 5s. a week—to use real money instead of getting sunk in foreign money. Under the proposals in the White Paper it is not possible for a rent to be increased by more than an average of 10s. in the course of a year.
The figure of an average of 10s. a year for an increase in rent provides the Council tenant with a solid reason for ignoring the assertion that this is a proposal for increasing the rents of council houses by 100 per cent.
There is, second, an important fact to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) referred. I hope that the Minister will be able to amplify it in winding up. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford quite rightly said that an investigation of council house tenants shows that a high proportion of them are people with low incomes. The notion that all council tenants are rolling in money is complete nonsense. A high proportion of them are pensioners or people of low earning power. There are various figures on this. There is good reason to believe that about half the council tenants earn so little that they will qualify for partial or complete rent relief under the proposals in the White Paper, which again is highly relevant to the myth that this will double the rent of every council house tenant.
I should like my right hon. Friend to give us details, if they are available, of the income level of council tenants who are poor and also a reasoned estimate of how many council tenants will qualify


for partial or complete rent relief under the proposals in the White Paper.
My next point is of some importance to council tenants. I was interested to notice that in all the speeches which have been made from the other side only one reference has been made to this point, and that was a single-sentence reference. I noted that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), in what seemed to me to be a very skilful throw-away line, expressed his approval in one sentence of what is for the council tenant perhaps the most important paragraph in the White Paper, namely, paragraph 35, which begins with this sentence :
With the introduction of fair rents a council tenant will be entitled to the same protection against summary jurisdiction as any other tenant.

Mr. Julius Silverman: No.

Mr. Curran: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman why. I fancy that my knowledge of council tenants is an extensive as is the hon. Gentleman's. I know, and if the hon. Gentleman does not know it, he should know it, that because a council tenant am be evicted without any formality and because the council holds over a tenant's head the power to evict without argument and without appeal, councils are able to enforce restraints, restrictions and regulations upon their tenants which no private landlord would dare to enforce.
This is one of the most widespread grievances in the country. It is a very proper grievance. It is a widespread grievance throughout Greater London and in every industrial city. It is a well-founded grievance. Because councils have been endowed by Parliament in its wisdom, if that is the right word, with the power to evict without notice and with-out argument, councils have been able to make regulations for the behaviour of their tenants and for the habits of their tenants of a sort that are intolerable.
I will not take up too much time, but I want to make some reference to these restrictions which councils impose on their tenants because of the power that they have to evict without notice. For instance, many councils do not allow their tenants to keep pets. The rule is, "No dogs. No cats. No rabbits. No bugerigars. No pets of any kind." There are councils which not only enforce the rule

against pets but which compel the tenants to have their pets destroyed. Other councils impose rules on their tenants about which kinds of flowers they shall grow or whether they shall grow any.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Some councils, at the wish of neighbouring tenants, impose restrictions on the keeping of pets, especially nasty, big dogs.

Mr. Curran: I am delighted to have had that interruption. It expresses a point of view which I totally repudiate. I will explain to the hon. Lady why I repudiate it.
I will illustrate my point that all over the country councils use the power to evict to impose upon their tenants restrictions and regulations which are socially intolerable in the 1970s. As I have said, some councils forbid their tenants to keep pets. Some councils insist that tenants shall grow flowers. They specify the kind of flowers, even the height of the flowers. Some councils have laid it down that tenants must not erect television aerials. Some councils lay down what colour the front door shall be painted or what colour a room shall be painted.
Some councils go further. There was a celebrated—I think that is the right word—case which attracted a great deal of publicity a few years back about the behaviour of the Socialist council which was then in charge in Jarrow. The council in Jarrow had on its housing estate a tenant whose wife wanted to earn some extra money. Her name was Mrs. Tudor. She became for a while a national celebrity. I am glad to think that, although it was before I was in the House, I did something to extend fame to Mrs. Nora Tudor.
This is how the Jarrow Socialist Council treated Mrs. Nora Tudor. She wanted to earn some extra money. She began doing embroidery at home. The council found this out and ordered her to stop. The chairman of the housing committee explained why the council had issued this decree to the tenant. His words were : "Her husband earns a good salary. She does not need the money. Therefore, we are not going to allow her to earn it". This was the epitome of petty tyranny. It is a form of petty tyranny which can be found in other areas.

Mr. Leonard: I have some sympathy with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman


says. Does he not think that, as he holds these views, it is beholden on him to support Bills introduced by hon. Members on this side to extend the rights of council house tenants and give them security of tenure—Bills which have been blocked by the Government—rather than for him to support a White Paper which will place very heavy additional burdens on council tenants?

Mr. Curran: Surely that interruption is not on the level which we are entitled to expect in this debate. We are debating a White Paper which proposes to give the Government precisely the power that the hon. Gentleman thinks it ought to have, namely the power to forbid councils in future to use this bludgeon of eviction in order to regulate the behaviour of people who live in council houses.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all that paragraph 35 of the White Paper means is that those councils which now use the summary procedure will go to the county court instead? It does absolutely nothing for the security of the tenant. I am not against it, but it means practically nothing.

Mr. Curran: It is noteworthy how much indignation and restiveness this criticism arouses among Labour Members of Parliament. One would suppose that they would vote for this proposal to liberate council tenants from petty tyranny. Instead of welcoming it, they are doing their best to prevent my explaining it. They will not succeed, of course.
I want to give a further example of what I mean when I talk of petty tyranny. I do not know whether it is an accident or not—I will not go into the theory—but whether it is an accident or something which can be explained I leave to the House to judge. However, it is the case that when we come across examples of this petty domestic tyranny over council tenants, in nine out of 10 the councils are Socialist dominated. The habit of Socialist councils to meddle with tenants is very strong and extensive. There is at least one council—I do not wish to identify it by name, although I will do so if anybody challenges me—which has laid down that tenants would be turned out if it were discovered that they were living in sin. This council wanted to know whether a couple living in a council

house had marriage lines or not. If the couple could not produce marriage lines, the council threatened to evict them.
I come to the interruption by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). There is not in this country any private landlord or group of private landlords who would dare interfere with the behaviour, and still less with the morals, of their tenants. Let me give an example. I have lived a great deal in London. I should like very much to see what would happen if the wicked and brutal private landlords of Hampstead, Chelsea and Belgravia began to enforce the rule that any tenants living in sin would be thrown out. If they did that, I can think of several squares in Chelsea which would instantly look like the Sahara Desert. There are whole areas of Belgravia, Hampstead and Bloomsbury which would be depopulated overnight.
The truth is that no private landlord dreams of meddling with the morals or with the behaviour of his tenants in the way in which councils habitually meddle. Equally the private landlord—I know how much he is abused and vilified—does not interfere with the domestic habits of tenants in the way in which councils do. The reason for this is that councils feel, as private landlords do not, that they have some right to regulate and perhaps improve the habits of their tenants. This is, I suppose, why one finds Socialist councils so eager to do it. The feeling among Socialist councils is that the working classes are lower classes who need to be looked after for their own good. It is this feeling of tutelage which inspires so much of the Labour movement—the desire to do good for the poor, to regulate them even if they do not want to be regulated. I do not believe that council tenants are in any greater need of regulation or supervision for their own good than are middle-class tenants or the tenants who occupy penthouses.

Mrs. Jeger: The rules about the keeping of pets and the general tenancy rules of the Camden Council have been the same under both Conservative and Socialist majorities.

Mr. Curran: I am quite prepared to believe the hon. Lady. I know that power tends to corrupt even Tories. It corrupts them not as much as it corrupts Socialists, but it is almost as big a temptation. It


may well be true, as the hon. Lady tells me, that some Tory councils have sunk to the level of behaviour of Socialist councils. I do not defend them when they do so. When I think of the behaviour of Socialist councils which have ruled Camden Town and Holborn, as a long-term resident in that region, I have often toyed with the notion of starting a "coals in the bath" society for council tenants. I believe that if a council tenant wants to keep coals in the bath he should be completely free to do so. He should have as much right to keep coals in the bath as any private tenant or owner-occupier has. I should be inclined to suggest that the right to keep coals in the bath is one of the hallmarks of freedom.
Far from accepting the hon. Lady's assertion that councils have some sort of right to regulate the behaviour of their tenants, I repudiate it totally. They have no right to concern themselves with the behaviour of their tenants. They are able to exercise their power to meddle simply because they have the power to evict. It is this threat which they hold over the heads of their tenants which enables them to make the rules and regulations which they make—rules that have no place in this country.
I am delighted that the Tory Party at long last has decided to strike the bludgeon from the hand of the municipal bully—for that is what it is. I welcome this White Paper for this reason as well as for a great many others. I am confident that the council tenants will welcome it, too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before I call the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), which I am about to do, may I remind the House that much as we enjoyed the last speech, and interesting though it was, we are slipping a bit in terms of time.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I will try to be brief. May I first refer to the point which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) laboured at great length. It has nothing to do with paragraph 35 of the White Paper. All that paragraph says is that a council, instead of taking a tenant to the police court for eviction, may take

the tenant to the county court for eviction. That is all it does. It does not prevent eviction. It does not prevent the petty tyranny which the hon. Gentleman has described in great detail. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he has obviously neither read nor understood the White Paper.

Mr. Curran: Mr. Curran rose——

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry, but other hon. Members wish to speak. I would gladly give way if I had time.

Mr. Curran: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to make an accusation against me and then refuse to let me answer it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I must plead some ignorance. I was trying to let as many hon. Members as possible speak in this debate. I am afraid that I missed the point. If the hon. Member wishes me to probe it further I will do so, or would he prefer to leave it as it is?

Mr. Silverman: I would gladly give way, but other hon. Members have been here all day and wish to speak.
I regard the White Paper as being wholly reactionary. Some of the apparently mitigating features are merely fig leaves intended—unsuccessfully—to hide its reactionary nature.
In the private sector, about 1½ million dwellings will come out of control and go into regulation within the next three years. No matter whether they have no bathrooms or toilets, no matter what is their condition of repair, they will come out of control and go into regulation, and their rents may be doubled or, in many cases, trebled. It does not matter whether they are slums, provided that they are not actually represented as slums ; they will come out of control and go into regulation, and the rents will be increased. I regard that as a thoroughly reactionary measure.
It is said that the tenants may apply for a rent rebate. In Birmingham, under a Private Act, we have had a rent rebate scheme operating for the past nine months, a scheme not quite as generous as the Government's proposal but fairly generous none the less. Among 60,000


private tenants there are at present only 235 rebates operating. That is all. The scheme has almost been a fiasco. If the Minister presents his rebate scheme for private tenants as a great boon, he is very much mistaken. In fairness to the City of Birmingham, I should say that it set aside for the next financial year £100,000 for the rebate scheme. It is running at the rate of about £10,000.
Why should this be so? Undoubtedly, the private sector covers the poorest section of the population. It may well have been thought that there would be a great demand. I can give some of the reasons why the rent rebates are not being taken up.
One reason—this has already been mentioned—is that the most exploited sector, the furnished sector, does not come into the scheme at all. It does not come into the White Paper scheme, either. This is the point : the most exploited sector in which the highest rents are paid for the worst property does not come into it.
Second, because of their poverty, a substantial number of the Birmingham tenants are on supplementary benefit and would, therefore, derive no benefit from the scheme, as they will derive no benefit from the White Paper scheme, except that the local authorities will have to contribute towards the sums involved.
Another reason is the unwillingness of tenants to apply even when they qualify. In rent rebates, just as under the F.I.S. scheme, wherever a means-tested social benefit is offered, it is resented. Many people who are entitled do not wish to apply because they do not wish to declare their poverty as a means of securing social benefit. Hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the pride which people in this section of the community feel and their sense of humiliation in applying for a means-tested benefit. They do not want to make their poverty known.
It is true that there may be more people receiving benefits under the Government's scheme, which is more generous than the Birmingham scheme, but it is equally true that more people will receive them because, as the rents go up, more will qualify for rebate. In short, the common picture will be rents going up, say, £1·50 or £2, and the tenants, against that, receiving a rebate of, perhaps, 75p or £1. They will be so much worse off.
I do not regard that as a measure of compassion on the part of the Government. Quite the contrary. In the private sector, it is simply a massive subsidy to the landlords, paid partly by the Exchequer but mainly by the tenants at present in local authority houses.
I come to the public sector. A good deal has already been said about the increases which tenants will have to pay. There are those who argue that all rent allowances and subsidies should be means-tested. There is a case for it. But, if it applies to the council tenant, if he is asked to subject himself to a means test, what about the owner-occupier? I believe that the total of mortgage interest relief now received by owner-occupiers is running at about £300 million a year, more globally and individually than council tenants receive. Why should it be said that the owner-occupier should have that mortgage relief without means test?

Mr. Norman Tebbit: It is not a subsidy.

Mr. Silverman: Of course, mortgage interest relief is not called a subsidy, but it amounts to the same thing, at the end of the operation.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit rose——

Mr. Curran: Mr. Curran rose——

Mr. Silverman: I have said that I will not give way any more. At the end of the operation, the Exchequer is so much worse off and the owner-occupier is so much better off.
The same goes for improvement grants, at present running at the rate of about £47 million a year, and to be increased under the new measures. They are not called subsidies. They are called grants. The term "subsidy" is directed only at the council tenant. No one asks the person whose property is to be improved at public expense what his means are. No one says, "You can afford to do it yourself. You can stand on your own feet". That approach is reserved for the council tenant.
When this subject has been raised, people have asked why tenants do not buy their own houses. Under this Administration, tenants are allowed to buy their own houses at a 20 per cent. discount. That 20 per cent. discount is


a 20 per cent. subsidy. It may be £500 ; it may be £1,000. Where is the logic in saying that we must not subsidise the tenant but, once he intends to stand on his own feet and be an owner-occupier, we are prepared to give him a lump sum grant?
It is a piece of nonsense. Basically, the reason is that the Tory Party does not like council tenants.

Mr. Tebbit: And the hon. Gentleman does not like owner-occupiers.

Mr. Silverman: I have no objection to any of these grants being given. In 1959, we increased improvement grants for owner-occupiers. But what I am demanding is that the same principle should be applied to the one as to the other. That is all. I am not asking for any special privilege for the council tenant. I am asking simply that he should not be treated as an inferior person but should have the same treatment and not be subjected to a means test when he is given public money. It may be said to be wrong to give public money at all—I believe that it is right and in the national interest—but each section should be treated in the same way.
No further subsidies are to be given. The subsidy total is to be stabilised at its present basis, and out of the current £200 million a year subsidy one will have to deduct the amount of financial assistance to be given in the rebate scheme, which under the Government's scheme may be fairly substantial. I have no objection to the rebate scheme. What I object to is what goes with it in the White Paper.
On my calculation, it will not be possible to stabilise at that figure, even upon a fair rent basis—we do not yet know what a fair rent means—without a substantial reduction in the number of houses built. According to the White Paper, in 10 years the Government hope to be saving £300 million a year on what the subsidy should have been. It is impossible to stabilise it without bringing about a drastic reduction in the number of houses built.
One or two differences have been pointed out already between the approaches of the two sides to a fair rents system. We did not like the level of the fair rents which have been

assessed. In the private sector the scarcity problem has been ignored by the assessment committees, which is why in London, for example, assessments are three times as much as they are in Lancashire and, in Birmingham, twice as much for similar properties with no greater amenity. That proves that the intentions of the Act have never been brought into operation. The original intention in our Act was to keep down rents. The obvious intention of this Government is to put them up. That is one basic difference. It is all very well right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about fair rents. Their system has an entirely different purpose.
There is another point of difference. In the original Act, the method of calculating fair rents was based upon the individual assessment of each house. Is that to be done for 5½ million council tenants and three million private tenants? Of course not. There will be a mass assessment, as the G.L.C. has done. Rents will be worked out according to gross values. That principle was rejected when we introduced fair rents.
The Government's system will be quite different. We have not been told anything about the mechanism of the assessment committees. After all, the councils will not be concerned. They will make proposals, but the assessment committees will be the final arbiters of what are fair rents. In Birmingham and the adjacent area, with two million people, about 20 adjudications have been done in the last year. How will it be possible to do seven million or eight million adjudications? What is the mechanism? How many rent officers and how many more rent assessment committees will there be? How will it be done? We have heard not a word about this.
We shall have mass assessments. The main object of the scheme is to save large sums at the expense of council tenants. I condemn the White Paper root and branch. It is an attack upon 5½ million council tenants, and I hope that it will be resisted.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Perhaps I might deal first with one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). I should have thought that he


would understand, first, that a 20 per cent. discount which is offered to the tenant of a council house buying his house as a sitting tenant is precisely that. It is a discount because the market value of a house is less to a sitting tenant that it is on a completely free market, and in respect of the fact that the tenant has probably been paying rent for a considerable number of years. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought to charge council tenants more, he should say so.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I was not saying that. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tebbit: No. The hon. Gentleman would not give way when my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) had the motive behind what he said impugned, and nor will I.
Time and time again, hon. Gentlemen opposite come back to tax relief on mortgages. It is always the same theme. They think that anything less than 20s. in the £ tax is essentially a concession and a subsidy. I cannot understand why they equate paying less tax with being given a cash grant. The two are quite different. There is no argument about it, unless one takes the view that 20s. in the £ of a man's income is the State's entitlement.
We heard some very odd arithmetic from the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I understood him to say that he was in favour of owner-occupation. He made the point that that has become 50 per cent. and more in recent years. He said also that he was in favour of extending rather than reducing the area of public ownership of housing. That is already 30 per cent. The remaining 20 per cent. is the most unlikely area from which new owner-occupiers will come. I refer, of course, to the privately rented sector.
From where is the right hon. Gentleman's new owner-occupier sector to come, unless it is from precisely the source which he criticised my right hon. Friend for suggesting, from those better-off council tenants who move out when they are faced with paying fair rents? Some peculiar arithmetic has gone into the right hon. Gentleman's calculations.
Looking at the White Paper, I do not think that anyone should be surprised or ashamed that, after a quarter of a century of being essentially on the same

tack and not solving the problems, a Government should have come forward with a radical new suggestion. Whatever criticisms even Shelter makes of our proposals—and it has many—it says :
We welcome the Government's initiative in producing the most radical proposals for housing reform made this century.
Regardless of its criticisms, Shelter recognises that this is a step which previous Governments have not had the courage to take.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not agree. I cannot understand their attitude. Is it that they had a wonderful scheme to solve the problem which they kept secret, like the wonderful terms which they might have got in some other negotiations which went on and which are still topical. Alternatively, did they intend pumping in more and more money, without any thought of when it should stop?
In the last quarter of a century, we have seen a massive shift into owner-occupation. That is wholly to the good. However, the White Paper does not acknowledge sufficiently the difficulties that we shall face if we are to get any further along that road. Fifty per cent. leaves us with the most difficult 50 per cent. to get into owner-occupation. High interest rates, high urban land values——

Mr. James Dempsey: High unemployment.

Mr. Tebbit: —and the high cost of housing generally will make it more and more difficult to cut into that other half. It may be that in future it will be more and not less difficult to get that 50 per cent. increased. Possibly it will be more difficult for young married couples to get on to the happy escalator for the owner-occupier of rising house values and away from the perils of rising rents.
The background to the White Paper is a mixed one. As I have said before, I find it hard to accept that, 25 years after the end of the war, during which time our standard of living has improved immeasurably in terms of washing machines, detergents, cars, holidays abroad, television sets, and crinkle-cut frozen chipped potatoes instead of the old-fashioned things with skins, we were still not meeting our housing needs. There must have been something wrong for us to have


failed in that way. The only possible conclusion is that we did not face the fact that price control is essentially harmful in the long run even to those whom it seeks to protect. The same applies to wage control. I am glad that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have at least come to accept half of that philosophy, even if they do not agree with the whole of it.
I see nothing wrong in principle with the Government seeking to keep down the cost of the commodity. That is a proper thing for them to do. Nor do I see anything wrong in principle in their intervening to ensure that people can afford the commodity—rent, in this case. I must emphasise that I said "keeping down the cost" and not the price, because if we had continued on the path of keeping down the price whilst the cost was rising, we would have gone further into the old Socialist morass of shortage, of queues and of rationing in any commodity, and that includes housing. The most favourable thing about the White Paper is that the Government recognise it, almost all the Press recognise it, and some right hon. Members opposite, even if not all their back benchers, recognise it.
I welcome the White Paper because it faces reality. On one council estate that I know well, there are treated exactly the same, tenants who are belly-aching because the council would not put in a new colour television aerial, and tenants who cannot afford to pay their rents because the rent rebate scheme is not adequate. If that is the nature of the priorities we are told that Socialism is about, it is not my language of priorities that there should be subsidy for colour television watchers while, in the same borough, there can be no subsidies for those who have nothing to watch except the mould creeping up the wallpaper.
The White Paper moves towards subsidies for the private tenants. If it does bring some benefit to the private landlord, is that too much for hon. Members opposite to swallow? Is it too much for them to face the fact that a private landlord may gain some benefit in order that his tenant should also gain benefit? It is not too much for me to face. The White Paper will bring the realisation, when it becomes legislation, that the pri-

orities within a man's wage packet must by food, clothing and a roof over his family's head and that these priorities must be equal. He must be given help in the same way if he is in difficulties regardless of where in the country he lives or who his landlord is.
Finally, I give two cheers only and not three to the White Paper for directing the help to areas in greatest need, because I am not sure that it goes far enough in that direction. I disagree totally with the right hon. Member for Grimsby. If the housing account is in surplus in one area, if that local authority is not in an area of great housing need, I see nothing wrong in taking money from there and transferring it through the Exchequer to areas which are in housing need, or in using it for bigger slum clearance subsidies. That is a laudable intent. But I give only two cheers because I think that the White Paper does not go quite far enough in recognising that we face a national problem.
I understand that about 18 per cent. of householders now receive rate rebate. It seems that 20 per cent. or more may receive some form of rent rebate or allowance. If we live in a country where that proportion of our people cannot afford the going rate for the roofs over their heads, it is not a local problem and not only a housing problem—it is a much deeper problem than that. I believe, that although it is focused on the areas in our great cities, this is such a national problem that we should regard it as being of the utmost priority to solve.
So far, we have managed to hide it away. I believe that the White Paper brings it out. I only regret that the Opposition intend to vote against the White Paper. If they do, they vote against the principle of greater help for slum clearance, of greater help to the poorest tenants, and in favour still of smearing subsidy right across the board without regard to true need.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) apparently approves of the principle of taking still further powers away from local authorities. That is one thing that is very clear about the White Paper. Even if a lot of its appendices and other parts are extremely difficult to follow, it is perfectly clear that local authorities


are to have little or not initiative left in their hands. From a party that claimed always—certainly at the time of the Election—that it would transfer powers to local authorities, this seems an extraordinary thing to do. Not only are the Government imposing a national rent rebate scheme which local authorities will have to adopt, but they are even taking, in effect, the power of rent determination from the hands of local authorities as well as taking away part at least of such surpluses as an authority may be able to get out of the new exhorbitant rents it will be charging. So in all these ways the local authorities are losing power.
The most unsatisfactory thing about the White Paper is that it is so superficial. It is very like the speech made by the Secretary of Stale today. A fair example of this is the assumption that ran through his speech and has run through the speeches of hon. Members opposite—that every council tenant is, in effect, a recipient of subsidies. Yet it is commonplace, in London in particular, that many tenants of older properties are heavily subsidising other tenants. They are the sufferers in that sense. It is far from true to claim that every council tenant is benefiting from a general subsidy.
Why should we assume, as the White Paper does, that a general subsidy in housing is automatically evil? It is described as indiscriminate. But many other subsidies which all of us have come to accept are indiscriminate in this sense. I reject entirely the idea that remissions in tax in effect are not subsidies in form. They are withdrawing a charge which otherwise would have to be met. Let us take as an example direct grants. I had some share in introducing improvement grants in the first place. They are indiscriminate in this sense. We do not attempt to impose an income test for them. One could even say that in some respects the owners of lordly mansions, some belted earls, are in receipt of grants in order to maintain their properties. I thoroughly approve of such grants. But they are not subjected to a means test in this form. Many of the agricultural subsidies which we have come to accept are not based upon the assumption of means testing. Why do we pick out the council house tenant as though he were some special kind of person and regard

the subsidies which he enjoys as indiscriminate and classify them in this special way? That shows the class bias of so many Conservative Members which is instinctive—it pours out in this way without special thought.
We should not simply discard the idea of a general housing subsidy, although it is true that, as with every form of general subsidy, it should be fully justified ; but it is in the general public interest to ensure a high level of the public building of houses. This meets a general social need, and that is why there is still justification for the retention of some element of general subsidy, even though we may argue about its extent and the way in which we try to concentrate special help in special areas. I regard the White Paper's argument as superficial, which was how I regarded the Secretary of State's speech.
I will quickly insert one word of praise, but it is about the only one. I am glad of the announcement that we are to get rid of the Small Tenement Recovery Act, 1838. I am glad of it for a constituency reason. It is that a Conservative council in my constituency has insisted on using it in order to evict certain tenants, and the use of that Act does not give tenants the right to a hearing, or the opportunity to rebut charges which are not fully explained.
I go a little further. I should like the Secretary of State to take the modest further action of drawing the attention of local authorities to this proposal, asking them in the interim not to make further use of that Act, but to ensure that such cases may go to the county court where the tenants at least have a better chance of being able to argue their case.
I return to my major criticism, which is that the main effect of these proposals is unconscionably to raise the rents of many people whom the Government are asking to restrain their wage demands. What could be more crazy than these proposals at this moment? It is on that basis that most people will judge the White Paper and the forthcoming Bill.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly welcome the White Paper. This is a series of reforms long overdue. What depresses me, particularly after listening


to the debate, is the attitude of the Opposition. I have to remind myself when we hear their gloomy forebodings about the high levels of rents to be charged that these are the fair rents introduced by the Labour Government. Hon. Members opposite suggest that there is some difference between the fair rent system as applied to private tenants and that applied to tenants in the public sector. I find that attitude hard to understand, particularly as these proposals constitute one of the main points in our last election manifesto.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) suggested that paragraph 32 of the White Paper meant the tenant in a public sector house would have no hand in the fixing of a fair rent. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman has read that paragraph fully, because it is plain that the tenant will come into it and will be able to make representations.
I had thought, I suppose rather naively, that we were approaching a bi-partisan attitude on the subject of housing, with the fair rent proposals of the Labour Government, the particular responsibility of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), about which we have heard so much, and the general acknowledgement on this side of the House that in areas of high housing stress the operation of market forces could not be relied upon if social justice were to be obtained. Above all, on all sides of the House there is a great realisation that housing is essentially a long-term business. Unless we have the confidence of all parties to the equation—tenants, landlords, owner-occupiers, local authorities and housing associations—we shall not get the full answer which we all want, namely, better housing conditions for our people.
I am prepared to regard pragmatically any suggestion which would increase this confidence for the future. There is a certain amount of justification in the remarks made today on the subject of furnished tenancies. I would be prepared to look at this again provided that houses where the owner lives on the premises would be excluded from any such provision.
In return I would ask for a commitment by the Opposition to encourage private finance for housing for rent. It is

one of the facts of life, because housing is such a long-term business, that unless there is a bipartisan approach we shall not have any success. The Greve Report has shown that steadily the private rented sector has been whittled away. The reason is that there is a lack of confidence among those concerned. If we do not have that confidence then we fall back on local authorities and housing associations. This must be a second best solution in view of the size of the problem.
Two further points have emerged and I hope that they will be dealt with in the wind-up. The first concerns my own constituency where we are faced with starting the first new city to be built in this country—Milton Keynes. Here we are starting from scratch on a green-fields site at a time of rising house prices and rising building costs. We shall be in a difficult position in obtaining what the Government want us to obtain, a 50 per cent. balance between corporation and private housing for rent and sale.
I hope that the cost limits mentioned in this White Paper for the provision of rent rebate will be flexible and that the Government will look at this point in such situations.
I turn to slum clearance. There is a gap here in that the most rewarding expenditure which the Government could make is finance to extinguish industrial consents in areas of high housing stress. It is no good having a policy of relocating industry—and I am speaking particularly of London—when the vacated premises are immediately reoccupied by other industrial concerns which continue to produce the same employment opportunities and thus the housing stress which we are seeking to remedy. The Government ought to consider giving greater assistance to authorities like London to extinguish these industrial consents in favour of house building.
I warmly welcome the White Paper. If we can obtain, as a result of this, a feeling of confidence among all the parties engaged in this housing operation the position will be immediately and quickly improved.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate


because this White Paper affects more than 60 per cent. of my constituents. The effect will be major, overwhelmingly it will be damaging, and in some cases it will be devastating. The veneer of presentation of the White Paper has been smooth and ingratiating. The Secretary of State began with an emollient anthology of Press quotations. The title of the White Paper aims to please—" Fair Deal for Housing". But the game is given away in Appendix I under the very deceptive heading
Proposed Formula for the Transition to Fair Rents".
If one looks below the heading one comes to the meat. Paragraph 2 says that
the local authority … will be required to make … a further general rent increase …
Paragraph 3 says
… the local authority … will be required to increase rents …
Paragraph 4 says that
… the local authority … will be required to make a rent increase …
This is not a fair rents White Paper ; it is a rents increase White Paper and, what is more, a
rent increase of at least 50p a week
White Paper. The Minister's slogan for it should be, "Pay your rent increase now and hope for a rebate later". It is damaging in both the private sector and the public sector. In the private sector all rents are to go out of control by January, 1976, and the rents are to go up by, to use the Government's favourite formula—and I quote from the White Paper—
… not less than 50p per week".
Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mentioned, the landlord will be in a position to intimidate the tenant into accepting the new rent he wishes. The rent officer need never be consulted about what the rent should be. The acceptance by the Government of the Francis Committee's recommendation mentioned in paragraph 25 gives the landlord the opportunity to fix a rent privately with a tenant, and many tenants who are unaware of their rights and who wrongly fear for their security of tenure will accept whatever the landlord proposes.
This can go in indefinitely, because the White Paper states on page 7 :
When a rent has been registered at least three years, and the parties agree on a new rent, they can apply jointly to the Rent Officer for cancellation of the registration".
It says "can apply jointly", not "must apply jointly". In many cases they will not apply jointly and the landlord will get away with the rent that he wishes to impose on the tenant. The tenants who have most access to advice and who can understand advice best will be all right. But it is the tenants with least access to advice who most need it and it is they who will be most vulnerable. Even under present legislation, I can quote from my constituency an example of an attempt to exploit a defenceless tenant in this situation. That is what could and what will happen in the private sector.
In the public sector we have a prescription for ever-escalating rents because the Government clearly look forward to most rents going up, otherwise there is no meaning in the first sentence of paragraph 36 of the White Paper which states :
The rents of most council dwellings are at present less than the fair rent".
This must mean that the rent of most council dwellings will go up, and the Government wish it to go up. What is more the Government insist in paragraph 37 that the rent must go up by an average of 50p even if no fair rent has been determined, because their concept, under the White Paper, of a fair rent is a high rent—in fact, not just a high rent but an escalating rent. One does not simply, under the White Paper, establish a fair rent and that is the end of the matter. A new fair rent is to be established for local authority dwellings every three years. Therefore, instead of stabilising the rent situation, the White Paper introduces the new concept of the rent spiral.

Mr. James Allason: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the Government's proposals differ from the Socialists' fair rent scheme of 1965?

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) explained in great detail the difference between fair rents in the public sector and fair rents in the private sector, and, as


other hon. Members wish to speak, I do not wish to repeat what he said. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.

Mr. Allason: Over three years.

Mr. Kaufman: As I have said, we have a situation in which rents go up, but we are told there is to be a rebate or allowance and that that will make all the difference. First one has to catch one's rebate, and Appendix 2 gives the game away here. In what we are told is to be a national, comprehensive all-embracing scheme, one would think that, involving as it does almost eight million tenancies, the rebate would be automatic, that the local authority would take the initiative and ensure that the rebate would be paid. But no, it is the tenant who must apply. What is more the tenant does not have to apply only once. He has to reapply—and not just regularly ; but he has to reapply constantly, because the rebate lapses after only six months.
What a burden this is to the tenant, checking up whether his time limit has expired, trying to understand all the forms which he has to fill in. What a bureacracy to impose on the housing management office, an office which, certainly in a large city like Manchester, is burdened and over-burdened with allocations, transfers and exchanges.
How many tenants will ever make the first application? The White Paper boasts about the publicity which there will be, but there has been massive publicity for the family income supplement and it has resulted in a pathetic take up. What is more, these very people at whom family income supplement is aimed, and who have been so slow and reluctant to apply for it, are the very people who will be in the most need for rebates and allowances under this White Paper.
In any case, can this publicity which the Government are issuing, and about which they boast, be trusted? The Government give examples, give tables, of the rebates and allowances which there will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East has already pointed out that these are not examples of rebates on present rents but examples of rebates on notional fair rents. In any case, even with the tables, and even accepting that they are notional fair rents, all kinds of provisos are introduced. We are told in

Appendix 2 about one person, a man and his wife, a man and his wife and one child, a man and his wife with two children, but paragraph 12 on the previous page says :
The following tables illustrate the effect of the model provisions for the calculation of rebates and allowances set out in paragraph 2 of this Appendix in the case of households in which the tenant's wife is not working, any children are dependent children of the tenant or his wife and there are no adults other than the tenant and his wife.
In fact the application will be complicated and the conditions will be difficult to understand. The situation will be as baffling to the potential applicants for these rebates and allowances as are the qualification tables for social benefits which have been recently published and which some hon. Members have pointed out would render a private concern which put them out liable to prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act. These tables which the Government are publishing are likely to lead to as bitter disappointment for applicants as are the tables of social benefits to which I have referred.
What is clear is that the average family man will have to be earning well below average earnings, or he will have to be in a house with a very high "fair" rent, if he is to get a rebate which he will notice at all. It is absolutely contrary to what the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) said, and if he looks at these tables he will find, as they are stated here, how little the man on average earnings gets.
This Government are once again—as they have with relish so often since they came to power—hitting at the average breadwinner and his family. This White Paper will increase rents at a stroke and will go on increasing them regularly at a stroke. There is not a majority in the House at present to reject the White Paper, but the people will reject it as soon as the Government dare to give them the chance.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: This has been a sad day for the Opposition. They have had two major body blows. The first that I dare mention was the mini-Budget, of which I shall say no more, and the second is the Government's first-class housing proposals, for which we on this side have waited so long.
I remember asking my right hon. Friend to consider the phasing of fair rents almost 12 months ago. This is to be in the legislation. Anyone who has had experience of local authority housing work will realise the outcry that has come from the private sector at the inequality that it has always felt and the creation of two separate nations in the rented areas. The silly stories of people in council housing earning £200 a week and having a Jaguar outside the door are the sort of things which have been built up in malice. Certainly, the Government's legislation will for the first time correct this inequality.
Fear has been expressed today that there will be a low take-up of this offer. My view is that there will be a low take-up if we get the dreary, dismal picture that radiates from hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that the proposed rent rebates are hardly worth bothering about and that one has to look for the hidden snags. The table is perfectly easy to read.
It is just as well that we give great prominence to this tonight. For a married man with three children who earns £20 a week and pays £4 rent, the weekly rebate will be £2.65. Over half of his rent will be paid for if he earns £20 a week. If he pays only £3 a week rent, his rebate will be £2.05. I see no reason why we on this side should be ashamed of those figures. If that same man pays £5 a week rent, he will get £3.25 back. These are things to be proud of.
We have heard tonight of people already in a very poor financial state living in council accommodation. In the past, the main feeling that I have had in a constituency which is divided almost 50–50 between public and private dwellings has been that the private sector has always felt neglected.
One of the benefits of the Government legislation is that it will encourage the developer to start building flats and maisonettes to rent. If he can get a fair rent figure before he starts building, there is no reason to suppose that the private landlord, developer or builder will shy away from building for rent. This, surely, is the type of accommodation of which we are desperately short.
Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)

made one of the finest cases I have ever heard for the selling of council houses. He went on to say that owner-occupiers were much better off ; they had the benefit of tax relief, they had the equity in the building and they were free of all restrictions. He was fully for owner-occupation. I wish that he would repeat this to Labour-controlled councils. That is not how they see it, and I sincerely hope that this radiating light from the right hon. Gentleman will continue to radiate to the local councils.
The rate of council building has been mentioned. I venture a guess that if a local authority can balance its housing revenue account, as it will under this scheme, and have a healthy surplus, which obviously must go back to the Exchequer, more funds will be available for further building. I know that in the Inner London area a great deal of rate subsidy is given to the housing revenue account which will not be necessary in future. In Southampton, council house rents are subsidised by £140,000 a year. This will not be necessary in future. These are the little hidden benefits that should be brought out. I thoroughly welcome, as my hon. Friends do, this White Paper. It has been needed for a long time, and it is the beginning of a new structure for our housing.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: In the few moments I have I will deal only with one major issue which I hoped that hon. Members opposite might have mentioned. On the basis of figures recently supplied to me in answer to a question, the average subsidy to the owner-occupier is £60 and the subsidy to council tenants, Exchequer and rate subsidy combined averages £39.
The most desperately deprived section of our population, the tenants in furnished accommodation, are left unaffected by the White Paper. I asked the Minister on Thursday why furnished tenants were not given protection. He said—I think he will now accept mistakenly—that the total stock of housing was liable to decline by reason of the extension of protection under the Rent Acts. The Minister referred to page 212 of the Greve Report, which did not conclude that at all.
I have now obtained the figures which show the measure of the decline in


privately-rented housing stock from 1951 to date. If the Minister will look at page 80 of the Francis Committee Report, he will see that these figures, if plotted out on a graph, show that the decline has been steady from 1951 onwards and that the one period in which there was a more rapid increase in the rate of decline was in 1957 when decontrol came into effect. From 1961, through 1966 to 1969 and 1970, the decline is on virtually a straight line.
I am seeking to deal with the crucial argument put forward by the Francis Committee Report against extending the security of tenure of furnished tenants, which was the fear that landlords would cease to let if furnished tenants were given security of tenure. It is a necessary ingredient of furnished tenants getting the benefit of the rent rebate scheme that they be given security of tenure and have fair rents. To be paying out subsidies to private tenants with no control over the level of rents would be pouring public money into the pockets of the landlords. I do not think that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish to do this, although they clearly favour some forms of indiscriminate subsidy.
There is no justification for believing that there would be any substantial decline in the number of houses offered to let privately if furnished tenants were given protection. If we look at the stock of furnished tenancies, we find that only 11 per cent. consist of self-contained flats, and these are profitably to let and there is no reason to suppose that they will be withdrawn from the market. Some 42 per cent. are flats in conversions, which are exceedingly difficult to mortgage and to use in any way other than by letting. The remaining 46 per cent. are rooms, which are impossible to sell.
I urge the Minister to look again at the arguments in the minority report of the Francis Committee. The Minister is aware, as has been made clear by the speech of the Under-Secretary of State over the weekend, that there is in the Ministry a great deal of sympathy towards furnished tenants and the recognition that they are the most deprived. According to the Francis Report, in London the average rent of furnished tenants is £290 a year and the average income

of such tenants is £870 a year. They have no security of tenure ; and when the Francis Committee followed up 100 rent tribunal cases a year later, it could find only 20 of them, 15 of whom were under notice to quit or seeking to leave.
These are the families who are the most deprived. The Government's measures will do nothing to safeguard those people, and the Government's reasons for not taking any action in respect of those people are based on a fallacy. If it is only by allowing these families to be exploited that the private landlord system can be made to work, it is an overwhelmingly strong argument for abolishing the private landlord system.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: As I see the situation, broadly speaking, there are five tests to be applied to any proposals which are put before the House and the country on housing finance, rent policy and related matters dealt with in the White Paper. I do not wish to resist change ; a number of aunt sallies have been put up in this debate just to be knocked down. We are not disputing the need to look at the legislative position and at the financial situation in regard to housing from time to time and to make changes where necessary. Nor are we disputing the need for some basic changes. We would not have undertaken the extensive studies on which we embarked during our term of office had we believed that things were satisfactory and should continue in that way for ever. We feel there is a need to apply certain tests, which are as follows :
First, do the proposals outlined in the White Paper seek to identify those costs attributable to the provision of the accommodation of tenants and fix standard rents accordingly. Secondly, do the proposals identify those other costs in urban development and urban renewal which the community decides to pursue in order that these matters should be covered by the community's own provision? Thirdly, do the proposals or any policy flowing from them examine what general help should be given in equity as between all forms of tenure in the community? Fourthly, do the proposals for the policy document putting them forward identify housing objectives, such as the need for new building, slum


clearance, housing improvements and urban renewal generally, and evaluate investment needs over a given span of years ahead? Fifthly and lastly, do the proposals contribute towards stabilising costs without damage to the policies which are required in urban development and urban renewal, particularly in the major city conurbations?
On every one of those five grounds this White Paper falls down. I find the White Paper obscure and in many respects somewhat slipshod. In so far as it derives from some sound ideas about positive discrimination in social policy—and I do not deny there are some sound ideas buried in the White Paper—they have been largely bastardised by the obsession on the part of the Government and the Conservative Party over what they call "fair rents" but which, in effect, are market rents. They also result from the kind of schizophrenic pressures inside the Conservative Party which on the one hand recognise the problems, as the right hon. Gentleman certainly does, which face us in our big cities, but, on the other hand and at the same time, opt out of Government involvement in major areas of social policy in spite of a crying need for much greater public enterprise and community involvement in housing.
Some references in the White Paper clearly show seriously slipshod thinking in arriving at the conclusions reached. For instance, quite early on we have the statement that nothing less than the proposals outlined in the White Paper
… will create the conditions for a final assault on the slums …
I should very much like to learn from the Minister—these are his words—what precisely is in the mind of his right hon. Friend and of himself when they choose this terminology. Do they mean that they intend to clear the slums, as far as humanly possible, allowing for ups and downs, possible errors and failures—and I do not say that in any critical sense—or is it their intention to seek to clear our slums through local authorities and other agencies during the course of the next five, seven or 10 years, or whatever period one wishes to name? I do not put this in any flippant or light-hearted spirit. If we are to use language like this as a justification for these proposals, that language should mean some-

thing and should be defined. We should know what is in the Minister's mind and in the Government's mind.
We have heard before about this assault on the slums, and the rest. We had it in 1955 from the previous Conservative Government, when they declared a new slum clearance drive and in the following year dropped housing construction by local authorities by about 53,000 dwellings—a decline which continued until 1964, an election year, when the numbers began to increase again. When we see this language used we should be told to what the Government are committing themselves as a programme. The document tells us nothing about that. If the Government mean anything by these words, they should tell us, otherwise we can only assume that it is fine rhetoric and nothing more.
The White Paper makes questionable assertions on major aspects of the effects on the housing situation which it is important should be dealt with. Several of them have been touched on in the debate. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these questionable assertions about effects lead to some equally questionable conclusions by hon. Members opposite and by members of the Government.
The first of these assertions appears—and I mention this just in passing and would like an explanation—in page 1 of the White Paper, and refers to 2 million dwellings being substandard. That is the first time I have seen that figure in an official document. Up to now in all official documents and statements we have, since the National Condition of Property Survey of 1967 was undertaken, accepted the figure as being between 4 million and 4½ million. The White Paper says that there are 2 million. May we be told what calculations inside the Department led to a more than halving of the figure of obsolescent and substandard houses? This information is very important to our future housing policy. On page 2 it is said that 90 per cent. of the £220 million Exchequer and rate subsidies is being used to reduce the general level of rent. This has been argued time and again, and not for the first time in the House today. This is a popular misconception which I can only assume is being deliberately encouraged by the Government perpetuating it in the White Paper.
We do not know the proportion of tenants who, so far from being subsidised, are paying a profit rental to local authorities, but we do know that it is very large. I speak with some knowledge, as a one-time chairman of a finance committee in an area of housing stress with a big building programme. Subsidies are pooled, just like most rents are pooled, by local authorities, and 90 per cent. of them go towards stabilising the rents of recently built expensive property. It is probably the case that, apart from individual rebates because of low family incomes, there are no tenants of properties built before 1960 receiving any subsidy. It is about time to some of the nonsense we hear about general subsidies on bricks and mortar instead of on individuals was dropped. It has gone on far too long and it leads to seriously mistaken policies.
The general levels of rents in local authority estates have been stabilised, kept down, or reduced over the years, especially during the last 20 years, mainly by rent pooling, so that tenants of older, more cheaply built houses provide a profit rent to cross subsidise their fellow tenants in more costly but otherwise equivalent property. This is a central point about the local government administration of housing estates. In a White Paper discussing these matters, it appals me that that is not mentioned once, despite the fact that it lies at the centre of practically every local authority's conduct in operating housing estates.
It is about time that we got rid of this illusion of indiscriminate subsidies on bricks and mortar. With the departmental information at their command, it is inexcusable that Ministers should deliberately foster this socially divisive prejudice.
I turn to another point specifically stated in the White Paper on page 2. Here we are given, as one of the main reasons for the Government policy outlined in the rest of the White Paper, the fact that historic accidents have determined each local authority's housing stock, so that
An authority which built most of its houses when costs were much lower can balance its Housing Revenue Account by charging rents far below the present value of its houses. But an authority which has had to build most of its houses recently may be

obliged to charge much higher rents for houses of similar quality.
The simple answer to this in principle, no matter what details of application the Government could adopt, is to extend the principle of rent pooling on a cost basis over large areas such as the Greater London area and the new local authority areas which are to come into existence under local government reform.
In connection with the owner-occupier aspect, it is astounding that nowhere in the White Paper is there any reference to the £300 million a year subsidy by way of tax relief. I cannot see how one can discuss, study and make recommendations upon the equitable provision of financial assistance for housing, to whatever group of tenants, or owner-occupiers or to whatever families, without looking at the total picture and drawing certain conclusions from it. But the figure is not even mentioned.
The White Paper suggests, rightly, that the £220 million currently provided by way of Exchequer and rate subsidies does not produce the new building required in the municipal areas. That was stating the obvious. It was not a reason for the changes proposed but an aunt sally put up to be knocked down. No subsidies, as such, provide the dwellings required. They are contributions and incentives, but they do not provide the dwellings.
The major issue here as regards future building in the public sector is that of capital investment. This issue is not even touched on in the White Paper. There is no discussion of this fundamental and central aspect of future housing policy in the public sector. Without that discussion, without proposals and intentions in this direction, we cannot know in what way the problems of urban renewal in cities—the major problems which lie at the heart of all our housing problems—will be solved.
Several hon. Members opposite have said that one of their reasons for supporting the so-called fair rents provision of the White Paper is that it will make more resources available for housing. I believe that the Minister has got into the habit of saying this around the country and once or twice in the House. The only way in which to make more resources available for new housing is by increased capital investment.
If time permits I will return to this question before concluding, because we are entitled to some clear ideas and answers from the Government on this central issue of housing finance for the future.
Much has been said about changing the position in the private sector as well as dealing with the issues of municipal housing by way of the White Paper. The only argument which is posed in the White Paper for increasing the speed at which controlled dwellings will be decontrolled is that there have been only just under 4,000 controlled dwellings improved under the 1969 Act.
I do not question that figure, but it bears about the same proportion to the total number of old rented properties improved, which I understand is about 50,000, as the number of controlled properties to the total of substandard. Therefore, the only argument which is used in the White Paper is false. It is playing around with figures without looking at the full picture. Therefore, the argument which is put forward on the score of speeding up the process of rent increases in controlled dwellings is invalid.
We are told that we must have the fair rent system to introduce some kind of rational overall picture—a fair picture—into municipal housing. The White Paper says :
Many of the existing evils—unfairness between one citizen and another, neglect of people in need, dilapidation of property, waste of resources—are caused by the absence of any consistent principle underlying the pattern of rents.
No doubt there is a need for a review, but that is glib over-simplification. There is no reference there to the position of owner-occupiers—not only owner-occupiers as compared with municipal tenants, but one group of owner-occupiers as compared with another : the more well-to-do as compared with the lower paid, the large mortgagee as compared with the small. The larger, the bigger the benefit. The smaller, the less the benefit. There is no discussion of this question.
The major cause of all the evils referred to in the White Paper is the basic one of lack of housing, of inadequate investment—under whatever Government—and inadequate organisation to deal with the

major problems in city centres. These are the real issues that count and fair rents which are not fair rents in the public sector—not fair rents in the true sense of the word—are not the answer to these issues, which are not touched on in the White Paper. A fair return on cost is the only fair rent and it is also anti-inflationary. That is not what the Government have sought to adopt either in the private or the public sector. The White Paper states :
The rent of every council dwelling will in future reflect its value by reference to its character, location, amenities and state of repair, but disregarding the value due to any local shortage of similar accommodation.
Nowhere is there mention of the cost of providing the dwelling, maintaining it and managing it. This would be the right approach if one wanted to maintain not only fair rents but an anti-inflationary policy—and I mean fair rents according to the proper descriptive term that I am using and not according to false label applied in this context.
If I am wrong in suggesting that this is the area which requires further examination, may we be told specifically why is this the intention of the Government in the White Paper "The Reform of Housing Finance in Scotland"? Paragraph 13 sets it out :
The pooling of costs over the whole of an authority's housing stock, together with the freedom to fix individual rents, should ensure that tenants do not pay a higher rent than is justified by the quality of the houses they occupy.
If that is correct in the context of that document which has just been published by the Government, why is it not correct as a basis of policy in the document that is before us today? We are entitled to an explanation why pooled historic cost rents are sound in Scotland, apparently, but are not to be applied in England and Wales. We are entitled to have an answer from the Government who have produced these contradictory policies.
There is no doubt that it is inflationary to adopt the market rent principle in England and Wales. It is intended to exclude the tenants of municipal properties from any kind of financial assistance but to place upon them the burden of paying in greater and greater proportions over the years for all the urban renewal needs and rent rebate needs that are set down in the White


Paper. It is quite clear what is intended here if one reads the small print and if one reads between the lines. It is intended that tenants shall be paying an increasing proportion of the rent rebates and rent allowances to other tenants and that they shall also be paying, by way of repayment of surpluses to the Exchequer, large sums of money which will then be used to assist the areas in need. But the issue is not, as one hon. Member opposite suggested, that this would be in addition to the present levels of expenditure. That is not what has been put to us. What has been put to us is that there shall be a holding back of Government spending, whereas there shall be an increase in the rents charged to tenants and a taking up of surpluses.
We are also entitled in this connection to know the answers to certain specific questions which have been put in exchanges in this House and which have been put publicly—answers which I am certain are in the Department. First, what is the estimated profit to housing revenue accounts in this country when the so-called fair rent system comes fully into operation? At least one figure has been quoted in the Department of over £300 million per year surplus—profit—on the housing revenue accounts of the country. It has been suggested by responsible sources, for instance, from members of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, who have studied these matters carefully, as they have to, that that could rise to a profit of £500 million a year.
Are those estimates correct? May we be told what justification there is, apart from mere assertion in the White Paper, for taking this surplus from tenants' rents and putting it into the Exchequer in order to reduce the community's burden of costs in urban renewal and slum clearance?
Further, arising from one or two specific points made by Government back benchers in support of the White Paper policy, whether it is intended to increase capital investment in public sector housing by the extent to which there is a surplus drawn by the Exchequer from local authorities under the new rents system?

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: And the same for new towns?

Mr. Freeson: I say "any". Will what the Government draw by way of surplus on housing revenue accounts, or correspondingly in the new town structure, be added to the present level of investment in housing? I regard this question as central to the whole future of housing policy.
According to the Government's housing statistics published in May, 1971, investment is currently running at a level approaching £800 million a year. To be precise, for 1970 it was £771 million gross fixed capital formation in housing in the public sector. In real terms, that is, at constant prices based on 1963, it is £586 million, which shows a fall back. I just mention that to put the matter in perspective. The current figure is £771 million.
If there is to be a surplus of between £300 million and £500 million on housing revenue accounts as a result of the Government's market rent policies, may we have an undertaking, in the spirit of observations made by their own supporters, that that will be the increase of capital investment in public sector housing to which we may look forward on the introduction of the so-called fair rents system?
I do not believe that such an undertaking will be given, but, if it is not, the whole argument put by certain hon. Memberts opposite who wish to see greater resources directed to that end—the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) made this a central point in his short speech—is vitiated.
We on this side strongly oppose the idea of introducing market rents into a non-market sector of housing. If there be a need to reconcile the differences between a cost-rent policy, to give it a short name, and that which operates in the private sector under the Rent Act, the necessary change should be made by a closer and tighter definition, if circumstances warrant, of fair rents to relate them more closely to the cost of production and a fair return.
The main issue here is whether the White Paper contributes to fairness among all groups of tenure in the country. The plain answer is that it does not. Second, does it contribute to an increase of capital investment resources to deal, primarily, with our city centre


problems? Again, the answer is, "No". For those and the other reasons which I have stated, we shall vote against it. It is a shoddy document. It should not have been put to the House in the way it has.
It should have been put forward after much further thought to other major missing elements in the housing finance review which led to it. I have indicated that one major missing element is the discussion and consideration of expanding investment and ensuring equity between all groups—owner-occupiers and tenants of all kinds—which this White Paper fails to do. It is a "conning" exercise, and little more.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised some detailed points in connection with our proposals, and my right hon. and hon. Friends will study them before the Second Reading of the proposed Bill. I hope to take account of all of them in the interval. I refer especially to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). Both raised points of some importance which I shall study.
Inevitably, not by our choice but by that of the Front Bench opposite, this has become rather a political debate. When my right hon. Friend published his White Paper last week, the Leader of the Opposition described our proposals as "facile" and "reactionary". I should be delighted to take lessons in facility from the right hon. Gentleman. However, I do not see that the charge of reaction can lie. If there were one reactionary contribution to today's debate, it was that from the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He thinks that it is all very fine the way it is now. He says, "Let us go on with the system as it is, and let us put another shilling on the income tax to meet the growing bill for subsidies up to 1980."
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) takes rather a different view. I got the impression that he wanted reform so long as it involved no change.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) appears to have opted for historic costs in the public sector. I was

interested to hear that. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take the stand on historic costs and otherwise accepts our proposals, the difference between us is narrowed considerably. Reasonable people will say that this is a proper argument.
For the reasons set out in paragraph 6(4) of the White Paper, we think that historic costs will involve anomalies and injustices. The reason for adopting that approach in Scotland is that it is an interim measure because of the very big gap that exists between existing rents and possible fair rents in Scotland.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. He suggested that I did not want to see any change in the scheme. The contrary is true. I made it clear that there could be no objection to saying that some tenants should have more subsidy and that some should have less. What I object to is the vast reduction in the subsidy going to tenants. If it is reactionary to oppose the doubling of rents, which is what it will mean for millions of working-class families then I am a reactionary and so is nearly the whole of the Labour Party.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is a reactionary in this matter, as is his party on a great many issues such as industrial relations and the Common Market. However, I shall not pursue that further.
I claim that our proposals are radical. That is how they were described by the Economist and New Society. New Society put it very well, saying that it was
The first entirely logical approach to housing finance.
That is what "radical" means. To use Lord Haldane's famous sentence, it is the application of first principles to political problems.
Not only are the proposals radical. They are formed by a sense of social justice. With that in mind, I come to the first objection which the right hon. Member for Grimsby put to us. He could see no logic in applying fair rents to council houses because, he said, these fair rents were not related to the original costs. Perhaps that brings him close to the hon. Member for Willesden, East in


veering towards historic costs as a basic formula.
The trouble about both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman is that they are thinking in terms of the cost of building houses in terms of houses and not of people. They do not appreciate how unjust in terms of social justice the present system has become. It might be worth noting the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that fair rents are not fair when applied to council houses. Why not? No doubt the people in privately rented accommodation will note that the Labour Party is still determined to subsidise one group of tenants, irrespective of need, at the expense of the other. Why should tenants have fair rents in the private sector but not in the public sector? Why in the public sector should the tenants of older houses have to contribute under the pooling arrangements to tenants of newer houses? It seems to me a totally unjust system.
This is where I come to the most astonishing statement which the right hon. Member made. He said that he objected to fair rents on social grounds. He said that it would mean confining council estates to the deserving poor—he used the phrase—instead of the undeserving better-off and—to be honest—he added, better tenants. This seems an odd idea. He is saying that we should subsidise the better-off people to live in council estates so as to raise the tone of the neighbourhood. If that is what he thinks, the remedy is in his own hands—sell off the council houses.
The White Paper's proposals will prevent council estates from becoming ghettos of poverty because where there is no acute shortage the introduction of rent allowances in the private sector will discourage tenants in the private sector from putting their names on the waiting list for council houses, and they will be able to remain in the private sector. Under our proposals, there will be a fair deal for both public and private sector tenants. The same rules will apply in both. The fair rents will relate to the quality of the houses in both and there will be rebates in both, related to need.
The right hon. Gentleman took a great deal of exception to the fact that our proposals involve a means test. He and

other hon. Members opposite expressed noticeable anxiety about possible increases in the Civil Service that this would involve. Sir Waldron Smithers, had he still been with us, would have felt a good deal of sympathy with their criticism. But we are not prisoners of our ideology. In fact, I cannot quite see what he is getting at in his argument that the extension of the rebate system means the extension of a means test in a qualitative, as well as quantitative degree. He and Lord Greenwood, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, urged local authorities to extend the rebate system everywhere. Had the local authorities followed their advice, there would have been 100 per cent. means testing in the council estates.
What we are doing is to add the private sector to the list. I do not think that tenants of the private sector will complain at the chance of getting a subsidy. It is getting a bit late in the history of the Labour Party to try and produce this Pavlovian synthetic emotion about means tests. People have grown out of that. Already, so many people one way and another are means tested. It is strange that the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this is what he calls a new departure of social policy. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is all right to means test the poor, but not to means test those people who are not so poor : it is a strange doctrine.
The right hon. Gentleman described the rent increases which we are obliged to undertake as very large indeed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Not obliged.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Amery: I should like to give way, but I do not want to over-run my time. The hon. Gentleman said that we were not obliged to do so. If we are to develop the resources required to help the people and areas in need, it is necessary to raise the rents of those who are not in need.

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Kaufman rose——

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman had a very good go earlier on.

Mr. George Cunningham: That is one way to win a point.

Mr. Amery: I have been in the House long enough to know that one does not win a point that way.
The right hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members opposite attacked the increase in rents. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) talked about the beginning of a wage spiral. But many observers throughout the country find that the increase which we propose is less than they had expected. Is the Labour Party in a position to criticise? Under the Rent (Control of Increases) Act, 1969, the Labour Government authorised increases, without reference to the Ministry, of 7s. 6d., with a maximum of 10s. There is not such a large difference between that and what we are doing, but there is a big difference when what we are advocating is to be accompanied by universal rent rebates and allowances.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East talked about the phasing period in the private sector. It is true that the phasing period under the Labour Party was five years and that we have reduced it to three years, but those are three years accompanied by allowances and the Labour Party's scheme made no provision for allowances.

Mr. George Cunningham: Tell us about tax relief.

Mr. Amery: I am coming to that.
The right hon. Gentleman and others said much about fair rents and I got the impression that they would have liked us to extend our proposals to the furnished sector. To the extent that some Labour Members say that, it is a tribute to our proposals. I have much sympathy with the idea that these proposals should be extended to the furnished sector, but there are great difficulties. I think that it is four out of ten furnished dwellings which involve the sharing of facilities between landlord and tenant ; it is difficult to define the exact difference between letting and lodging ; it is difficult to reach a valuation of structure and furniture. The population dwelling in furnished accommodation is largely a floating population.
But we are still studying whether there is some way in which we may extend our proposals in the Bill to come in the autumn to the furnished sector, and, if there is, we should very much like to do

so. Hon. Members opposite with great experience of housing matters tell me that they gave evidence to the Francis Committee to say that there should be full security of tenure, but they did nothing about the furnished sector in their 6½ years in power. However, we should welcome any suggestion from them about how our scheme, or any variant of it, could be applied to the furnished sector.
I come to tax relief and owner-occupiers. The right hon. Gentleman contrasted the position of owner-occupiers with that of tenants. Owner-occupiers are growing in number, growing by 50,000 a year and already occupy more than half the housing stock of the country. We hope to see more in years to come. We think that our proposals will help and if councils will sell their houses that, too, will help, as well as assisting in producing the social mix which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to see.
I would flatly repudiate the idea that we are favouring the owner-occupier as against the tenant. The 1969–70 figures estimated that housing subsidies and rale fund contributions cost £220 million a year. That is about £48 per year per local authority house. Tax relief on mortgage interest plus option mortgage subsidy amounted to £224 million in that year—£25 a year per owner-occupied house. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) reaffirmed the principle of tax relief on mortgage interest in his Finance Act last year, when he abolished tax relief on many other forms of loan interest but retained it for owner-occupiers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to tell the 600,000 people who will take up a mortgage advance next year, and an even greater number who will do so in future years, that he wishes to abolish their right. If he does, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Crosland: We greatly enjoy the winding-up speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on a subject like this. [HON. MEMBERS : "Answer the question."]—I propose to answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I made it perfectly clear in my speech that I wished good luck to the owner-occupiers for all that they are getting by way of


concessions. What I ask is : are the Government defending a situation in which the owner-occupier gets an indiscriminate and non-means-tested subsidy, but council tenants do not?

Mr. Amery: I can only take it from the last two sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention that he thinks that we ought to means test owner-occupiers.

Mr. George Cunningham: Rubbish.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman went on to argue that our proposals——

Mr. Crosland: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? It is perfectly plain and direct.

Mr. Amery: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he thought it was unfair, and did I not think it unfair, to means-test the private and public tenant and not to do something similar to the owner-occupier? [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman wants to invoke a means test for the owner-occupier.

Mr. Crosland: The Minister's right hon. Friend is, I hope, giving him the answer now. I hope that someone will give him an answer, because he is obviously incapable of finding one.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Nonsense.

Mr. Crosland: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this plain and simple question? If we are to continue—which I think is what all hon. Members want—this generally indiscriminate tax relief aid to the owner-occupier, does he think it right that the council tenant should receive aid only when it is means-tested?

Mr. Amery: The whole point of our means test is not to restrict but to increase help. It is intended to bring help, for the first time, to the tenants in private occupation and to enable us to give more generous help to those in public occupation. The right hon. Gentleman charged that our proposals would have a deleterious effect on public sector building. I find it difficult to follow the logic of his argument. Housing authorities will receive increased revenue as a result of the move to fair rents. What is more important are the new subsidies

which we shall be giving to areas of stress. Under our proposals the clearing of slums and the rehousing of people are treated as separate operations, separately subsidised.
Let me say a few words on clearance. Under the present system, many authorities are inhibited from undertaking slum clearance as vigorously as they should since they cannot get a subsidy unless the land cleared is used at once for council housing. Under our proposals they will be able to use the land cleared for whatever development they think most advantageous socially—whether for parks or for shops and offices, or whatever it may be. They will still be able to collect the full subsidy and to build the new housing in whatever part of the town they want. This seems to me an important step towards urban renewal and improvement of the environment.
When it comes to rehousing, our proposals will increase substantially the financial help which the Government give to boroughs with severe housing problems but which they are now having to subsidise to a considerable extent from the general rate fund. The exact effect will vary from borough to borough, but where there is now a heavy burden on the rates these could be reduced by as much as 40 or 50 per cent. Take an area where there is stress, such as the London Borough of Camden. In 1970–71 it is estimated that its total subsidy entitlement was £1·7 million. In the first full year of the new system, it is calculated that it will retain £1·3 million of its existing subsidies and qualify for about £2·8 million of new subsidy. In total therefore it will have an increase of nearly 2½ times what it will have received last year. The Borough of Newham will get about £1 million more a year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: How will this save £200 million?

Mr. Amery: Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor myself has presented these proposals as primarily an exercise in saving money. The housing subsidies will continue at about or perhaps above the present level for the rest of the decade. We shall be avoiding the enormous increase to about £550 million which the right hon. Gentleman dismissed as a mere shilling extra on the income tax which would otherwise have taken place.
We take pride in the reforms and proposals we put before the House, but we should like to give credit where credit is due. We recognise that the Labour Party has played a very big part in laying the foundations on which we are building—in the 1965 White Paper, in the development of the fair rents system, in the development of the rent officer system—and so we have naturally been intrigued to know what it would have done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he laid his White Paper, put that question to the Opposition. He put it again today. We think that we have extracted some inclination towards historic costs in the public sector, but we are not sure. This is what my right hon. Friend tried to discover.
Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the question three times. On the first occasion there was no reaction. He asked it again, and then I saw, to my astonishment, the hon. Member for Willesden, East lean across to the Leader of the Opposition and whisper something to him. I could not hear what it was, but I had the impression that he was saying, "Look out, Harold, Dimbleby is coming". On the third occasion that my right hon. Friend put the question, the Leader of the Opposition rose and gathered his skirts around him as if an assault were intended on his private virtue or as if my right hon. Friend were asking him how much he was paid for his memoirs, and hinted that there was some constitutional impropriety, that there had been some leakage.
I know very well that there are no leakages on the Civil Service side. The British Civil Service is a terminus and not a junction. Their confidences are kept as well as the confidences in the Smoking Room of this House. Nevertheless, it was reasonable to suppose that after all the statements which had been made by Lord Kennet, by the hon. Member for Willesden, East and by Lord Greenwood the Labour Party had arrived at some conclusions. They had plenty of opportunity to tell us about them today, if they have them, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said they had rejected such conclusions as were put to them. I am tempted to think that perhaps he was right, that perhaps he was telling us the truth, either that the Labour Party could

not make up its mind, or it made up its mind and changed its mind when it got into Opposition. It would not have been the first time. It happened on industrial relations, on the Common Market, and now on housing. It would not be the first time, and it may be that where housing is concerned party unity comes before the national interest.
On 11th June of this year Mr. Des Wilson—no friend, in general, of this side of the House—wrote an article in the New Statesman and Nation under the title, "How Labour lost its grip", and I will quote the following passages :
The verdict on Labour's performance must be harsh, all the more because of the impressive start which was made in 1964 to 1967. Labour showed itself to be woefully weak about shedding outdated doctrines and facing up to the realities of the modern housing problem. It never did really make up its mind about the sale of council houses. Most Labour leaders felt it to be a reasonable idea but were too afraid of the rank and file to say so, and ducked completely the problem of rents. It has to be said loud and clear about rents that some people have been over-fortunate for too long. There was no justice in a system where council tenants were subsidised and private tenants went without regardless of need.
These are words of the New Statesman indeed, by a Labour sympathiser who had the courage to say—and I quote again—
This was a real failure of statesmanship.
Our proposals stand on their merits as a major contribution to British housing policy. They are also an integral part of the Government's wider campaign against poverty and squalor in all its forms—caused by lack of cash, and the squalor caused by deterioration of our environment.
We now come with proposals which, for many poor families living in privately rented homes, will for the first time give them help with their rents. This is a completely new departure, and it is essential if we are to deal with the problems of poverty. These proposals also play an important part in getting rid of housing squalor and give extra financial help for slum clearance and overcrowding. They will help London to be worthy of its position as one of the great capitals of the world, and will bring much-needed relief to other great conurbations.
Those who vote against this White Paper will be voting against people who


are most in need and against those who are the poorest in the country.

Question put :—

The House divided : Ayes 309, Noes 274.

Division No. 436.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Astor, John
Farr, John
Kilfedder, James


Atkins, Humphrey
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fidler, Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kinsey, J. R.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Batsford, Brian
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fortescue, Tim
Lambton, Antony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Foster, Sir John
Lane, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biffen, John
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicetser, S. W.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Longden, Gilbert


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Luce, R. N.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Braine, Bernard
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Bray, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bryan, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alrck (Angus, N & M)
Grylls, Michael
Madel, David


Buck, Antony
Gummer, Selwyn
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn Ernest


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marten, Neil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mather, Carol


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Channon, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


ChurchilI, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hay, John
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.( Aberdeenshire, W.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Moate, Roger


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Cooke, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Money, Ernle


Coombs, Derek
Higgins, Terence L.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Monro, Hector


Cordle, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Costain, A. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David


Critchley, Julian
Hooson, Emlyn
Murton, Oscar


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Curran, Charles
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, Ralph (Norfol[...], N.)
Nott, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James
Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clank
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Deedos. Rt. Hn. W. F.
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John


Dixon, Piers
James, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Jessel, Toby
Peel, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John




Pike, Miss Mervyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Pink, R. Bonner
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Trew, Peter


Pounder, Rafton
Simeons, Charles
Tugendhat, Christopher


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Soref, Harold
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Spence, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, lain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Redmond, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walters, Dennis


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Steel, David
Ward, Dame Irene


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stokes, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Sutcliffe, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Tapsell, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Royle, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Russell, Sir Ronald
Temple, John M.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


St, John-Stevas, Norman
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Younger Hn. George


Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)



Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Sharples, Richard
Tilney, John
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tarn
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Albu, Austen
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regls)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Roy


Barnes, Michael
de Fneitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Delargy, H. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Joel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hilton, W. S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Doig, Peter
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bidwill, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Driberg. Tom
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Booth, Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Greville


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jeger, MTS. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ford, Ben
Judd, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Cohen, Stanley
Ga'pern, Sir Myer
Kinnock, Neil


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E.
Lambie, David


Conlan, Bernard
Gilbert, Or, John
Lamond, James


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Latham, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Golding, John
Lawson, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Leadbitter, Ted


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Leonard, Dick


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold







Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lomas, Kenneth
Oram, Bert
Stallard, A. W.


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Strang, Gavin


McBride, Neil
Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


McCann, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


McCartney, Hugh
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


McElhone, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Pendry, Tom
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mackie, John
Pentland, Norman
Tinn, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Perry, Ernest G.
Tomney, Frank


Maclennan, Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tomey, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Urwin, T. W.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E )
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marquand, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wallace, George


Marsden, F.
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)
Wellbeloved, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Meacher, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Roper, John
whitlock, William


Mikardo, lan
Rose, Paul B.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Millan, Bruce
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sandclson, Neville
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Molloy, William
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)



Morris, Rt, Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Fredsrick
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Murray, Ronald King
Small, William

Resolved,
That this House approves the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" (Command Paper No. 4728).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Orders of the Day — MINERAL WORKINGS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM IRONSTONE OPERATORS TOWARDS IRONSTONE RESTORATION FUND

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'State' to end of line 16.

This Amendment removes from the Bill, as amended in Committee, an Amendment which was inserted in Committee. I hope that when the House has had an opportunity to consider the case that surrounds this particular controversy it will feel it right to reconsider the decision of the Committee.

Perhaps it will help the House if I set in context the Amendment and give the reasons that the Government feel it necessary to ask the House to accept it this evening. We are dealing with the Fund set up by the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, with the intention of reclaiming 2,500 acres of land made derelict by open-cast working in the Midlands ; and also to anticipate the future and to prevent fresh dereliction by securing that future workings shall be closely followed by suitable restoration.

The reclamation of past dereliction was a voluntary operation arranged between local authorities, operators, land owners and occupiers and financed from the Fund set up, according to individual agreements. Reclamation of current and future workings was to be covered in two ways. First, by the imposition of planning conditions requiring the back-filling and

levelling of worked land and the stripping and re-spreading of top soil. Under the 1951 Act operators are entitled to payments from the Fund for work carried out in compliance with these conditions in so far as the cost of the work exceeded the "standard rate", which was fixed under the 1951 Act at £110 per acre. In addition to this mandatory work, the Fund is used to pay for additional work over and above that required for the conditions, carried out by operators and local authorities ; for measures to improve the management and fertility of agricultural land carried out by owners and occupiers ; and also for afforestation.

These provisions are not affected by the Bill and the essential purpose of the Bill is merely to up-date the figures which were introduced following the 1951 Act.

The figures are built up of two elements : first, the standard rate which I have mentioned ; secondly, the contribution on a per ton extraction basis. Ironstone operators, on extraction, pay, in old currency, 2¼d. per ton of ironstone extracted, except in the special case I have already mentioned.

10.15 p.m.

Perhaps I might here say for the convenience of the House that in all the figures I shall give I shall deal in old currency, because it would take rather longer to talk in the complicated decimal equivalents. Everyone who has involvement in the affair has come to accept the old figures, and to accept and understand what they mean.

Operators pay in to the Fund 2¼d. per ton of ironstone extracted, and to this the exchequer puts ¾d. In general, operators may recover half of their 2¼d. from the royalty owner so that, in effect, each operator and royalty owner pays 1⅛d. No owner's contribution is paid, first of all, where the ironstone is covered by a full restoring lease, and secondly, where the land from which the ironstone is extracted is owned by a charity. In those cases the operator pays 1⅛d. instead of 2¼d. and is therefore in exactly the same position, because he recovers nothing from the owner. Operators are required to pay their contribution to the Secretary of State each April, in respect of ironstone production in the previous financial year. They may deduct the owner's share from their royalty payment.

That is the historical situation as to the purpose of the Fund ; and an outline of how the Fund is built up in two ways.

The situation today, when the Fund has been in operation for some 20 years, is that there was a balance of some £425,000 at 31st March, 1971. There are, however, substantial liabilities in respect of land which has been worked over but which has not been claimed for, and work shortly to be carried out, which is likely to exhaust the fund within a year or two.

It will be quite apparent, without spelling out all the reasons, why the Fund is now approaching insolvency. First of all, the 1951 Act contained no power to vary the contributions. Their value in real terms has therefore fallen over the years since 1951. Similarly, the 1951 Act contained no powers to vary the standard rate, over and above which the operator was entitled to claim from the Fund. Therefore, as time has gone en and as the cost of doing the work has increased, so the operators have claimed from the fund a higher proportion of the cost of reclamation, and it follows that they therefore have borne a lower proportion themselves——

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the morality of the situation? He says that the 1951 Act could not legislate as he says, but he is now introducing legislation which, in effect, introduces a very strong element of retrospection.

Mr. Heseltine: That was not quite the point I was making. The 1951 Act dealt with a future situation, and provided for in the prevailing conditions of 1951, a standard rate of £110 which operators had to pay themselves but over and above which they could claim on the Fund, and it provided for a 3d. per ton extracted payment, so to speak, or charge, to go into the Fund to build up against future contingencies. The 1951 Act did not give any Government the right or power to change those two sets of figures The Government could not update figures, and it was not possible to keep inflation relevant to the changing circumstances.
This is the problem which we are now, and have been throughout our discussions on the Bill, having to deal with. It has nothing to do with restrospection——

Mr. Griffiths: Of course it has.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe that there is an issue here between us. There were various conditions in, for example, the Redundancy Payments Fund, set up by the former Government, which included the same method of dealing with the situation. But that takes us no further in the argument. There is a certain situation, and all that the House is now being asked to consider is who is to pay for clearing up the situation. That is what it is all about. Only three lots of people can pay—the owners, the operators or the taxpayer.

Mr. Griffiths: Or the private owners.

Mr. Heseltine: I said clearly, the operators, the owners or the taxpayer. Whether they are private or public owners does not affect the morality of the situation one way or the other.

Mr. Griffiths: May I add a fourth category? The owners of the steel holdings prior to nationalisation.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his Government, in working out compensation terms, omitted to take into account this factor and that his Party now want retrospective legislation to take some money off the people who received compensation?

Mr. Griffiths: I am saying that the Under-Secretary misled the Committee. I will not say that he did so deliberately. But in so doing he has misled the House regarding the amount of land to be reclaimed prior to the Nationalisation Bill, 1967.

Mr. Heseltine: I can well understand that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on a quite different point from the one on which he was previously questioning. I was not impressed by the distinction between public and private morality and the retrospective proposal for the people who sold out to the British Steel Corporation. I do not believe that that is a serious contingency.
I will come to the figures. There has been a difference of opinion between those who have spoken in the debate as to what amounts of land are still outstanding. It does not affect the situation one way or the other, but I will willingly come to the figures. We are now faced


with a situation of £425,000 in hand at 31st March, 1971, and a situation of approaching insolvency because the 1951 Act had on power for subsequent provisions to update to keep in line with the declining value of money the figures fixed either in respect of the contributions made or the £110 per acre which was the standard rate.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would the hon. Gentleman say at what point is the tonnage payment made? Is it paid on monthly extractions or over a longer period?

Mr. Heseltine: The answer is yearly in arrears.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a system whereby a holding company can set up a small company at the end of the day, of limited capital, and can force it into a position in which it can go bankrupt. I merely raise this on the question of the time factor for the payments. Would it not be possible, instead of yearly in arrears, for them to be paid for a limited period?

Mr. Heseltine: That would improve the cash flow but it would not improve the overall balance on the account. To help the hon. Gentleman, the whole burden of the argument of his hon. Friend, with which he immediately associates himself and is right to do so, is that the people who will have to pay the increased charges should not be paying them at all, and that the idea that they should pay them even faster should not gain acceptance.

Mr. Loughlin: I was raising an entirely different point. It is no good making debating points. I merely wanted information.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry that it should appear that I was making debating points in answering a serious question in what I thought was a serious way. Hon. Members opposite are trying to suggest that payment should not be made and not that it should be made faster. That would not improve insolvency but it would improve the cash flow situation.
The remedies of the Bill are provided in the three Clauses which contain the most important provisions. First, there are to be new rates for operators' contributions to be fixed by Order. They

would apply, first, to contributions payable in April, 1972—in other words, in arrears—for production on or after 1st April, 1971. There would be a new full rate to replace the existing 2¼d. and a new reduced rate to replace the present 1⅛d. which applies to charities. Clause 2 provides for the owner's share of the contributions, which the operator may recover against royalty payments, to be fixed by Order. Different deductions may be necessary in the case of different classes or dates of lease.

Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to revise the standard rate from time to time to take account of the changes in the cost of labour and materials. We have an Amendment which was requested by hon. Members and which I hope they will find acceptable.

Full consultation with the owners is to take place so that everybody shall understand the full implications of what the Government have in mind and the figures that the Government are likely to recommend to the House.

The most controversial issue which has arisen during the course of the entire debate on this matter has been about the amount of land that is still to be restored, when it was operated, therefore, who it was operated by ; and who should now pay the cost thereof. I would be the first to say that there has been a certain amount of confusion.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Oh. This is new.

Mr. Heseltine: I am here to try to help the House with the information as best I am able.

Mr. Griffiths: When I made great play of this in Committee the hon. Gentleman practically called me a liar and accused me of making points out of something that was not substantial. The hon. Gentleman is now about to tell us that there are inaccurate figures, but he has not got the grace to apologise to hon. Members on this side for misleading the House with the figures he has already given.

Mr. Heseltine: I thought I was making at least a passable effort at telling the House that there had been some confusion with the figures. I am the first to say that there has been during the course of the discussions, for some reason or


other, some confusion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I was suggesting that I thought that he was a liar. I do not think that about him. I never did. Misguided, yes. A liar, no.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: It amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Heseltine: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reached one firm conclusion. I only regret that it is the wrong conclusion that he has reached.
I will now seek to clarify the figures as I understand them and also try to clarify why I believe that there has been this element of confusion. I am sorry if it appears that I have in any way tried to take upon myself the assumption that there has been no confusion. I would not want in any way to suggest that I think there has been a deliberate attempt on anybody's part to mislead anybody. I do not think that there has. I think that there has been an element of confusion as to precisely which lot of figures certain negotiations which involved these figures were referring to. This will become clear in a minute.
First, the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers estimated that as at 31st March, 1968, there were 1,420 acres which had been worked by the private owners for which claims were therefore entitled to be made and which were outstanding at that date. I would have given the impression—I have no intention of making this other than clear—that as a very similar figure had been restored up to 31st March, 1971 there was a prima facie case for assuming that the land that had been worked by the private sector had been fully restored.
There was a doubt. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) raised it by saying that it was his belief that a figure much closer to 3,000 acres was outstanding at 31st March, 1968. Therefore, there was an interesting discussion as to how this discrepancy in figures could have arisen. I think that I can explain why it arose.
It is true that there were 1,420 acres on which at 31st March, 1968, claims under Section 9 of the 1951 Act were outstanding and in respect of which there were liabilities. There were, in addition, potential claims for voluntary work by operators under Section 18(2) of the

1951 Act, in other words in respect of land which had been improved to agricultural or afforestation standards. These accounted for some 279 acres which did not come into the calculations. There was further land excluded by the National Council because the costs expected in reclaiming the land were less than the standard rate at that time. In other words, there would be no claim on the Fund in respect of this land because the cost of reclaiming it was less than the amount which the operator would have had to find out of his own pocket. This accounted for some 640 acres.
10.30 p.m.
There was a third category, land available for restoration only on the closure of quarries, and this amounted to 442 acres. In other words, this land was not brought into account because as a result of the inquiries which we made as to the land currently likely to be the subject of costs, it was considered that the date was too far in advance.
I would not wish to do other than make clear that I believe that this puts a different slant on my submission that there was a prima facie case for saying that the land taken over from the private sector and outstanding at 31st March, 1968 had been approximately reclaimed by now, since there are these three other classes of land which, when added to the figures, make it clear that all the land in the private sector has not been reclaimed. I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that that is a full explanation——

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Heseltine: —given in good faith in an attempt to clarify the situation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) I was not in the Committee which considered the Bill, but I am interested to ask how the Department will make sure that this situation—which may have arisen for a very good reason—will never arise again. This is a question that I have been asked by a constituent.

Mr. Heseltine: That is a perfectly fair question. All of us who have been involved in this matter from the Department's point of view—and I am sure that this applies also to the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers—


will be aware that in the dialogue that has gone on there has been an area in which the two different groups of people were apparently working to different figures. I would not want to suggest that that has not happened. It has happened and I wish it had not. However, it does not change the proposals.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Of course, it does.

Mr. Heseltine: It does not change the proposals. It might change the hon. Member's assessment of the merits of the proposals, but the proposals are as valid today as they were before.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister brought this Bill to the Committee stage on false figures. He stuck dogmatically to those figures throughout the Committee stage. He now makes a very modest effort at apologising to the House for misleading it, and the mistake is with his Department. The hon. Gentleman is not man enough to admit it.

Mr. Heseltine: I assure the hon. Gentleman that man enough I undoubtedly am, if I believed it. But I do not believe the mistake is with my Department. I believe there is a genuine confusion, and I believe it is the sort of confusion that can easily rise when one person asks a question and somebody else believes that the question meant something slightly different. This is in no way a reproach to anybody. I believe there has been genuine confusion on both sides.

Mr. Alan Williams: During the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman made great play of the suggestion that the fault was with the industry and not with his Department. Surely his Department, or a Department, has been administering this Fund for 20 years, and should at least understand the terminology relating to the fund that it is operating?

Mr. Heseltine: That is a legitimate observation to make, but, in the context of what we are dealing with here, although the Department has overall responsibility, the fact is, as we all know, that this fund has not been treated with, perhaps, the surveillance which we would all have wanted, by either Government. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] It is fair to say that, although one must refer to the

Department, throughout all this time there have been politicians in charge of it, and, if there was any responsibility, it was the responsibility of the politicians, not the Department. It is a nice point, and we can argue at length about who is responsible. The fact is that the fund has not been subjected to political scrutiny for a long time, by either Government.
All the detailed and technical figures relating to the amount of ore extracted are in the hands of the industry, either the British Steel Corporation, which is now, virtually, the industry, or the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers. They are the only people who really know what is going on on the ground. In reply to certain questions from the Department, which may or may not have been properly phrased, certain answers were produced, which may or may not have been completely comprehensive. I do not think that it adds anything to have a postmortem now, particularly in the light of the very full explanation which I have given of what has happened.

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that his Department did not know about these acreages. They axe about double the number actually given, so the Department missed half the acres outstanding. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) may quarrel with this, in a sense, but the effect of the Bill as drawn was to cause the operator, the British Steel Corporation, to pay for the restoration of the land. Since half of the land outstanding was, apparently, not known about in the Department when the Bill was drawn up, may we now take it that there was no intention, and there is no intention, on the part of the Department or enshrined in the Bill to insist that the British Steel Corporation pay for the restoration of this land which was completely lost sight of?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that brings me to my last point in support of the Amendment. That is the crucial question. Would it have made any difference if we had been talking about the figures which I have now produced, about figures halfway between the two, or about the figures which I was originally talking about? In the Government's view, our arguments


would not have been changed in any way. The case is based on a simple point. In our view, the Government's original intervention in 1951, when they agreed that the taxpayer would contribute ¾d. per ton extracted, was that that should be seen to be part of the old clearing up problem which existed pre-1951, to which they were committing the taxpayer at that time. There is no doubt about that.
The Government are now saying that there is no doubt that the entire pre-1951 problem—give or take an acre or two—has been cleared up. As it is now a contemporary problem, within recent years, there is no reason to distinguish between this industry and this facet of it and any other industrial pollution or dereliction which might be developing. That is the essence of the Government's case.
It is our view that the industry must be responsible for clearing up its own dereliction. If hon. Members opposite were to suggest that the Government should in some way increase the ¾d. for this industry, would they then go on to say that we should make equivalent grants available to all other industries to clear up all other forms of dereliction which one sees around?
Let there be no doubt about it. The amount of clearing of dereliction going on under this Government is equal to, if not superior to, any efforts by any previous Administration. But there is no specific grant for clearance of the sort that this industry attracted in 1951. Therefore, we have to decide whether in some way to continue to single out this industry by providing that this sort of dereliction shall attract enhanced contributions from the tax payer. That is the argument that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Originally, the Government decided that the ¾d. contribution that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays towards the fund should come to an end. Broadly speaking, my arguments are those which influenced the Government in deciding that the original ¾d. should no longer be paid from the Exchequer because the pre-1951 dereliction had come to an end. When the consultative processes took place, the Government were persuaded to continue to pay the ¾d. in respect of the continuing clearing up of the situation ;

in other words, they decided to remain involved to the extent of the fixed figure of ¾d. per ton extracted, but they would not enhance the level of contribution and single out this industry for special treatment. The industrialist must be responsible for the dereliction that he creates. That is the simple issue before us.
We believe that this matter is urgent, and that the figures must be up-dated. We can see no reason why this industry should be given further special preferential treatment over and above that agreed upon in 1951. For those reasons, we say that these words should be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Alan Williams: I find it disappointing that no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry has seen fit even to appear in this Chamber. No one was present on Second Reading, and no one was present in Committee. The Department is the sponsoring Department for the steel industry, and one would expect at least some form of demonstration of interest from the Department. It may be that the sheer lack of interest displayed by Ministers and, we assume, echoed by the Department, is one reason why we are confronted with this shoddy little Bill.

This Amendment is the basis of the central dispute between the two sides on the Bill. While we disagreed substantially in Committee, we had a reasonably amicable discussion, and we made it clear that with our Amendment the Bill was non-contentious. The Amendment was carried in Committee. Tonight, having lost the argument in Committee, the Government will use their whipped Tea-Room majority and reinstate their intentions in the Bill.

The Government are taking their vendetta against the steel industry one more stage. They began by depriving the industry of its £100 million of investment. They continued by denying it the 7 per cent. price rise that it felt to be necessary. Now they are reduced to picking the odd £1 million from the industry where they can.

The basic objective of the Bill is to make the British Steel Corporation pay for a deficit on the Ironstone Restoration Fund for which the Corporation is in no way responsible and for which all existing legal obligations have been met


fully. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government see no reason to differentiate between this and other industries. The fact is that this industry was covered by statutory obligations, and it fulfilled them. What the hon. Gentleman is doing is trying retrospectively to alter the obligation despite the fact that the industry has paid all the contributions required of it under the previous legislation. That is why we say that the Bill is retrospective in the worst sense.

10.45 p.m.

Let us establish the background facts. There is no great contention about them. The Ironstone Restoration Fund was set up in 1951 to receive contributions from the iron ore operators to pay costs over and above the standard rate of restoring land. At the turn of this financial year, about 3,100 acres remained unrestored, but the contributions on those acres had already been paid into the fund. The average cost of restoration is about £545 an acre for levelling and for spreading, plus about a further £100 for restoration of fertility and the erection of fences and so on. We are thus talking of an average cost of about £650 per acre for full restoration to agricultural or other uses. Therefore, the total possible call on this fund as a result of past dereliction is £1·6 million. The total assets of the fund are £400,000. So we are faced with a total deficit as at the beginning of this financial year of £1·2 million. This is what the argument is all about.

How did this deficit arise? The hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out that, after the fund was established in 1951, in 1951 and 1955 decisions had to be taken on the standard rate of contributions. These were set at 3d. a ton on extractions and £110 standard rate per acre. But the important factor was that at a time when the cost of restoration work was rising sharply and when social and public expectations of standards of restoration were also rising, there was built into the Bill—and both sides of the House have certain responsibilities for this—no power to vary these charges. Yet this is fundamental. Whereas £110 per acre was adequate to meet the full cost of restoration in 1955, we are talking today of £645. The fund is still operating an historic, totally out-dated contribution level.

We have to understand that it was the Department which administered the fund.

It was the Department which was responsible for financial control. It was the Department which failed to realise the full significance of escalating costs at a time when there were fixed contribution rates. It was the Department which failed to call a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration, certainly for 10 years and possibly for as long as 15. So it never even had the advice of the industry on the situation which was arising. It was the Department which failed to bring forward amending legislation to vary the standard rate or the rate of contribution. These were the Department's responsibilities and its failures.

The industry, on the other hand, fulfilled all its legal obligations meticulously. The Department fell down on its job, and the industry is today being asked to pay for it—and the present owners are not even the same owners as before. The Government's remedy, faced with this deficit of £1·2 million—which is not the responsibility of the B.S.C.—is to levy a charge on the future workings of the operators, which virtually means the Corporation, in order to pay the past deficit, most of which arose under different ownership.

The hon. Gentleman has been singularly coy throughout the proceedings of the Bill in giving information. It would have been better if more information had been given at the beginning ; we had to fight to get any information from the Department. That is one of the causes of the difficulty about interpretation of the consequences. I am sure that some hon. Members opposite have felt this difficulty, too. Like us, they could only speculate about the impact of the Bill on the industry. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman could have eased its passage had he given more information at an early stage.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The Under-Secretary has seen fit, both in Committee and again this evening, to alter the figures which were the basis of our deliberations, and this makes the Bill worthless.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is indulging in his gift for understatement, but broadly I agree with his proposition. In Committee on 29th June the Under-Secretary indicated—in column 55—that he was thinking in terms of a new standard rate of £220 per acre, which is


double the existing standard rate, and a new contribution rate of 3p. I recognise that he is not to be held firmly to those figures, because he was trying to give us an idea of the change he was envisaging.
The Government contribution was to remain at its present low figure of three farthings. So the Government share was to fall from 25 per cent. to a mere 10 per cent. of the contribution. But the net effect of the change is that, whereas the standard rate will already have doubled on the figures proposed, the contribution rate for the operators will virtually treble.
It is easy to see that this is intended clearly to eradicate the pre-April 1971 deficit. In the next 10 years the B.S.C. plans to work 2,520 acres according to its own figures, yielding 84 million tons of minerals. The average yield per acre works out at about 33,300 tons. The charges which will have to be met for restoration by the industry will be £220 standard rate per acre, plus about £1,000 contribution, from which can be deducted approximately £100 to be given by the Government. About £1,100 or £1,200 per acre will be charged to the industry for the dereliction it creates. But the average cost of restoring the land, including the extra £100 fertility and fencing allowance is only £645. It is clear, therefore, that the figures that the Under-Secretary has in mind are intended to meet the deficit, which is not the responsibility of the current owners of the industry. The Bill would give power to increase these contribution figures even more during the next decade.
On Second Reading I accepted that lack of flexibility in the original legislation was a great mistake and that there had to be flexibility in the new Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will not deny that these charges are to meet the deficit which, we would argue, already existed.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine indicated assent.

Mr. Williams: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's acceptance.
After our Amendment had been carried, the hon. Gentleman could not charge to meet that deficit, and the Government as seeking now to restore the

Minister's arbitrary discretion to charge the B.S.C. for what we regard as the past obligations of the Department.
How do the Government justify their intentions? My hon. Friends who were on the Standing Committee will confirm that we have had a permutation of assorted and abandoned arguments. This evening we have heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Bill is merely to update the figures of the 1951 Bill, but he forgot to point out that it up-dates it merely for the Steel Corporation and not for the Government. If the deficit is to be cleared, our objection is that the Government are not to pay their share, that their share is to fall, another point which is not in dispute.
The argument in support of the Amendment is that that is perfectly legitimate because the Government intended to contribute only to the clearing up of the pre-1951 dereliction, an opinion to which the hon. Gentleman is welcome, but an assertion which he has never managed to document and for which he has never managed to produce the slightest evidence.
In Standing Committee, at column 31, I produced a quotation from the Minister of Town and Country Planning of the time, who said :
The financial details of this policy are now being worked out, but, in general terms, the Government intend that, in future, 75 per cent. of the cost of restoration should be borne by the producers and royalty owners, and 25 per cent. by the Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950 ; Vol. 477, c. 232.]
We argued that the hon. Gentleman's protestation that this was to apply only to pre-1951 dereliction was a legitimate view for him to take, but was not proved, for he had not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim.
At another stage it was argued that it was reasonable to charge the B.S.C. for this deficit because the B.S.C. benefited from undercharging in real terms. So did the Government. They were supposed to pay 25 per cent., but they were not paying 25 per cent. when the alleged undercharging took place.
Lord Sandford in another place spoke of the B.S.C. as
the proper successor to the industry and heir to its liabilities as well as its assets. It is right that the responsibility should pass


squarely on to the shoulders of the corporation…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st April, 1971 ; Vol. 316, c. 1510.]
I have already shown that there were no liabilities. The liabilities as established in law had been completely fulfilled. It was the Department which fell down on its administration, not the B.S.C. or even the previous steel owners. The fund was not properly administered.
I am not making political capital of tht, because various Governments were responsible. In Committee I made it clear that this was not a matter of Conservative Party versus the Labour Party about who was responsible. The responsibility rests on both sides of the House to some extent, but one has to recognise that the Department has not fulfilled its administrative obligations.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: If I understand correctly what the hon. Member is saying, he is saying that the taxpayer should bear this burden and not the British Steel Corporation. Why? Surely the liability taken over by the Corporation on vesting included this liability? Surely my hon. Friend was right when he said that it was up to the industry to restore land which it has degraded in the not-so-distant past. I do not see why the taxpayer should come into this.

Mr. Williams: I will come to that a little later. In Committee the hon. Gentleman made the legitimate point that if this charge had been imposed before it would not have been upon the industry, but would only have been passed on in prices. What he was saying was that the general public got the benefit of this, not the Corporation. The fact, is, and hon. Members can make political points if they wish, that the existence of this deficit in the fund was not known. It has only recently been discovered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will admit that this seems to be the case. In Committee the hon. Gentleman switched to trying to impose a moral obligation on the Corporation and used words similar to those used tonight. He said :
… the polluter must be made responsible for the pollution which he creates. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 58.]

As the basis of this case he produced figures which have been mentioned this evening and claimed that :
… the land still to be reclaimed is, very largely, land which has been extracted by the British Steel Corporation since its creation in 1968."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 24th June. 1971 ; c. 38.]
Later he said :
It is our judgment that the bulk of the land under discussion is land which was worked post-nationalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 54]
He justified his position on 24th June by saying :
… a few months after the British Steel Corporation took over—there were about 1,420 acres worked by the companies"—
that is the privately-owned companies—
and, at that stage, unrestored."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee. E, 24th June, 1971 ; c. 38.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to adduce the argument that since 1,300 acres had been restored by the fund in the three relevant years, virtually the whole of the remainder—namely, 3,140 acres—must be the responsibility of the Corporation.
At the next meeting of the Committee I challenged the hon. Gentleman's figures. He then "discovered", or his Department "discovered", another 600 acres relevant to the private operators. He then blamed the industry for this error, not his Department or himself. He said :
I accept no responsibility on the part of the Department for that, because the figures all came from the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 59.]
Bear that in mind because I want to read a letter in a moment. He later went on to say, in column 60 that it had nothing to do with his officials.
Let me quote from a note I subsequently received prepared by the Corporation. I will substitute the phrase "Under-Secretary" for the hon. Gentleman's name. It says :
The figure of 1,420 acres quoted by the Under-Secretary in column 38 on which all his subsequent argument was based was not provided by the industry—only by the Department. The area of 1,420 acres quoted by the Under-Secretary was arrived at by his Department without consultation with the industry.


The Under-Secretary made a number of references to the mistake made by the industry and said that he could accept no responsibility on the part of the Department. The Corporation has complained strongly to the Department about this and asked that the Under-Secretary should put the record right on Report.
The hon. Gentleman has done that but not over-enthusiastically. The note goes on to say :
The Under-Secretary stated or implied, a number of times, that the industry had not given figures to the Department. The industry have given all the figures they have been asked for, but have seldom been asked.
I am not making a personal attack upon the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will not interpret it in that way. Anyone can end up giving information to the House in good faith.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Where is the note from?

Mr. Williams: This has come to me via the C.B.I. Minerals Committee. I will gladly make copies available if the Minister or hon. Gentlemen would like to see it. There is no secret about this.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member would, I am sure, agree that there was confusion. I tried to explain it in my opening speech. Information was also provided by the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers. It was on the basis of that information—not information supplied by the British Steel Corporation—that I made my original statement.
I must, however, clarify the point. As I clearly said, questions were undoubtedly asked and I have no doubt that in the precise language of the questions answer were given. It is as to whether the questions were correctly interpreted, and to what extent one could consider whether further and fuller information could have been provided in the light of those questions, that the confusion arose. I believe that there is genuine confusion.

Mr. Williams: Cannot the hon. Gentleman see the point that we are making? It is astonishing that his Department was able to produce a brief for Ministers which went all the way through the Cabinet committee structure, which went through the briefing procedures for this House, without the officials ever getting

the accurate figures on which to base the proposal. That is the essence of it. That is why we feel that the hon. Gentleman has not made his case. He spent virtually the whole of one Committee sitting arguing the matter, trying to substantiate his claim, on the basis of the responsibility of the British Steel strate that there was no such responsibility.

Mr. John Farr: Would it not be the fact, however, that the B.S.C. would not necessarily be consulted as it was not the only extractor? Quite properly, the right body to which to go would be the representatives of all the extractors, who would, no doubt, include the Corporation.

Mr. Williams: I certainly would not argue with the hon. Member on that point. All I am trying to say is that in his argument tonight, when talking of the industry, when the Under-Secretary spoke of the Corporation he was virtually speaking of the industry.

Mr. Heseltine: In following that argument, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will realise that he is quoting denials from the British Steel Corporation. At no time did I suggest that the Corporation provided the figures that we were talking about. I said that the figures, about which there was confusion, were produced by the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers. If the hon. Gentleman would like to quote from anything that that body has said to him, I should be interested to hear it.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman cannot wriggle away from the fact that his Department, wherever it went for its figures, was unable to give a true and accurate presentation of the situation as it existed. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) has a legitimate sense of grievance that at the first sitting of the Committee he was to some extent taken to task by the Under-Secretary for daring to suggest that the bulk of the outstanding restoration was attributable to the private owners, whereas the figures now make it clear, as I shall demonstrate, that it is attributable to the private owners, because in 1968, 1969 and 1970, the three operating years of the Corporation—and it was responsible for only part of 1968—the Corporation occupied 1,134 acres.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend accept that unless the Minister can answer this fairly convincingly, there are serious people outside, of whose party politics I am unaware, who feel that what is at issue is the whole validity of Whitehall statistics? This casts serious disrepute on the way that Whitehall does its business.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend has a valid point. It must be a matter of public concern that a Bill can be presented on the foundation of a set of statistics which are subsequently shown to be not only inaccurate but utterly erroneous, and yet, because that piece of legislation has got into the pipeline, it is inconceivable for the Government to say that they will take it back out of the pipeline. This point should be a matter of concern to both sides of the House, whichever party is in office. The residue of private dereliction in 1968 was not 1,420 acres, as the Under-Secretary of State told us on 24th June ; it was not 2,000 acres as he told us on 29th June ; but, in fact, it was 2,900 acres—more than double the amount originally admitted to by the Department.

Mr. Farr: That is not true.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman says it is not true. All he has to do is to look at column 38, where the Under-Secretary of State gave the figure of 1,420 acres. The B.S.C. figure now is 2,900 acres, which I do not think the hon. Gentleman is disputing. I do not think we are arguing about the total figure ; he has arrived at virtually the same figure.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he followed my speech with his usual care, that he is greatly distorting the situation. The fact is that of the difference of 1,500 acres between the 1,420 and the 2,921, it was expected at the time the consultations took place that 640 acres would attract no charge because they were reckoned to be capable of being put right below the standard rate. This is an example of the distortions that have arisen. In respect of 640 acres, nearly half of the disputed area, it was assumed that there would be no claims at all.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but we are dealing in averages, and it is equally possible

that some of the 1,100 acres worked by the B.S.C. will not qualify for claims from the fund, so the argument can work both ways.
The hon. Gentleman has argued that the polluter must be made responsible for the pollution which he creates. Yet private industry was responsible for 2,900 acres of pollution, whereas the maximum for which the B.S.C. could be responsible is 1,100 acres ; yet the B.S.C. will be responsible for a total of 3,140 acres. This is a dubious application of the principle that he who creates the pollution shall be responsible for clearing it. It does not meet the requirements which the hon. Gentleman has set himself, the Government and the industry.
For this reason we feel, with some justification—I do not make this a personal case against the hon. Gentleman ; he takes the brief he gets from his Department—that, since the whole basis of his case has clearly disintegrated, this is a statistically meaningless exercise. His Department has been astonishingly inept in the presentation of the case, and, as a Minister, he has a legitimate grievance. I should have felt highly embarrassed if I had had to come to the House with figures that chopped and changed every time I referred to them. I should have felt I was standing on a quicksand. It is to his honour if he does not feel this way, but he could have a legitimate grievance that his Department has served him less than well. That is between the Minister and the Department, but the country can feel it has been served less than well, and so can the industry.
A whole mountain of legislation is being built on the basis of a set of figures which is utterly erroneous, and for that reason the Bill should be withdrawn. At the very least the Minister should withdraw the Amendment which he has had the impudence to move tonight in the light of the evidence which is available. He should withdraw it because this legislation, if it is amended in the way he suggests, will be arbitrarily retrospective. It will mean that the B.S.C. will pay for the slipshod departmental financial control within Whitehall. It will mean that B.S.C. will pay for land which it did not work, and for land on which existing legal obligations have been fulfilled.
This is a shabby, disreputable little Bill, based on an inability to interpret or even understand facts, and it is being pressed forward because of an unwillingness to admit that an error has been made.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The present situation is just as was anticipated in Committee, when it became perfectly clear that the Under-Secretary did not know his Bill. It has been demonstrated that on this point he was very badly briefed indeed. His case, which has been effectively countered by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), is based on a misapprehension of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman was also badly informed on other features of the Bill. He was so badly informed that he said "I will explain these things when we come to Report." We had a lengthy discussion in Committee as to whether the proper place to deal with these complex matters was in Committee or on Report. It was pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the possibilities for debate on Report were far more circumscribed than in Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman did know his Bill. On that question, as on other questions, he could not give any explanation.
We did not want to hold up a Measure whose principle we accept ; we accept the principle of the polluter paying for his pollution. Our quarrel was that on this occasion this particular polluter was being compelled to pay for somebody else's pollution and, as we considered, in a most unfair way.
I remind the House that twice during Business questions in the past two weeks I have raised the question of the proper time for the Bill to come before the House on Report. We know that the Report stage began this evening after ten o'clock and it is now a quarter past eleven. We could discuss this Bill for some hours, but it is clear that the pressure is upon us. Members are already hanging around and asking "When are you going to get this matter finished because we know there is to be a Division?"
This is abusing the facilities of the House and is not giving Members a

proper opportunity to discuss a Measure that ought to be discussed, a Measure which has been presented to the House by the Under-Secretary in a most inadequate way. The hon. Gentleman took it for granted that the Bill would pass through the House without any bother at all.
I will not repeat the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. He presented his case admirably, and I congratulate him on the effective way in which he exposed the inadequate way in which the Bill has been prepared and presented.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) contradicted me, indeed challenged me on one occasion. I would have been prepared to accept the challenge had the Minister substantiated it. The Minister said that the fund with which we are concerned was the British Steel Corporation ; he said there were two other small extractors, so small as to be insignificant. When we were considering who was to pay for restitution, it was always the B.S.C.

Mr. Farr: Mr. Farr indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member for Harborough shakes his head, but if he looks at the Committee's proceedings he will see that what I am saying is borne out there.

Mr. Farr: It is rather tiresome when hon. Members opposite seem to think that the B.S.C. will be the only people to suffer. In fact, the royalty owners will pay just as much as the operators. The British Steel Corporation is only the majority operator, so the royalty owners together will be paying far more than B.S.C.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman must have been nodding quite considerably in the Committee, or he would have heard the Under-Secretary of State refer to
the need before reaching final decisions to have consultations with the owners about how precisely the apportionment may turn out to be made in the future. These leases "—
that is, the leases under which the royalty owners operate :
are binding contracts, and they have been drawn up on a basis which may not make it possible for the owners of the leases, for example, to contribute more without actually


subsidising the operation from other sources of revenue.
The Under-Secretary then went on to talk about the possibility of the royalty owners going bankrupt. He justified this method of charging by saying that the British Steel Corporation would simply pass on the charge to the customer. When we asked for an explanation, he could not give it to us. What has emerged more than once was that there is an exceeding great doubt, I put it no higher, that the royalty owners will be charged nothing extra whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman said :
The British Steel Corporation is very largely the Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 72–73.]
What is now emerging is that the British Steel Corporation will be charged for the restoration of land long since worked over.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) butted in on the question of principle and asked my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West who was to pay : was my hon. Friend suggesting that the taxpayer should pay? The suggestion is that the taxpayer is not already paying for pollution. It is not particular industries that are paying for the pollution we see all over the countryside.
I can give the hon. Gentleman one example of the polluter not paying for and not being expected to pay for his pollution. Only in the last Session we had a Scottish Bill which completely exempted from any rates—not taxes—people engaged in intensive farming. In many cases they have put up what are factory buildings, crowded with animals and causing intense pollution from noise, nuisance, smell and the rest. Yet those people are not expected by the Government to pay one penny in rates. Here is an example of where the principle does not apply. If my hon. Friends feel that because it happens to be the British Steel Corporation it is being made to pay, can they be blamed if they suspect that had it not been a nationalised industry it would have been treated differently, when they have the excellent example in which those engaged in intensive farming are excused entirely from paying rates?
I used to think that the Under-Secretary was one of the very bright young men of the Tory Party. He should rise

and admit that there has been quite inadequate preparation and that the Bill was based on an understanding which has since been proved to be false. He should admit that his Department was unaware of how much land was to be reclaimed and that the figure which the Department accepted was only half the true figure—and that he brought forward the Bill on the basis of a false figure. His claim that the Steel Corporation should be made to pay for restitution was based on the view that to all intents and purposes all the old work had been done and that the Steel Corporation would be asked to pay only for work which had been done since it came into existence. We now know that that is completely wrong, and the Under-Secretary should withdraw the Bill. If he does not, then I state that it is scandalous that we should be forced to go on with the Bill. At least we should conclude our consideration now and be given a more appropriate opportunity to discuss the Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: I intervene only for a moment, and without taking sides. Are there no auditors or accountants in the Department to ensure that everything is going on correctly? Why has all this gone on for so long without someone realising that something should be done? It sounds peculiar to me that this situation could occur in a Government, of either party. What has happened to the accounting section of the Department or Departments over the years? Are not these matters checked year by year?
I am not good at figures, but I have always had great faith in the fact that in all Government Departments and enterprises—nationalised or private enterprise—there were auditors and accountants who checked these figures. Who has the responsibility in Government Departments to give advice that matters of this kind are correctly audited? District auditors examine local authority accounts. From the point of view of departmental efficiency, someone should have been keeping an eye on the situation.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I return to the point made by my hon. Friends and Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), that we do not object to the point of view


that the polluter should put right his pollution.
If the Under-Secretary had proved categorically that the arrears of reclamation were the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation we should have been perfectly happy to see that debt being accorded to that Corporation. But during the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman practically crucified me as a political heretic for suggesting that part of this pollution was the responsibility of the private steel barons prior to nationalisation. He has amended his figures on at least three occasions. If the hon. Gentleman would bother to listen, I suggest that his political credibility in the House has evaporated this evening, never to return, because he is guilty of one or two crimes. He is guilty either of incompetence, in that before bringing a Bill to the House he should have said to his Department, "Check your figures and check them again to make sure that you are absolutely correct"—which he obviously did not do—or of deliberately misleading the House. I hope he is guilty of the former and not the latter.
If the hon. Gentleman has any political integrity, and if his Government have any credibility, I suggest that in view of his admission that his figures have been completely erroneous, the least he can do on behalf of the Government is to withdraw the Bill and bring it forward later in a state of greater credibility.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I will not deain the House long because we have covered ground covered many times before. It is more important to take the point first raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and referred to by various hon. Members opposite, and to deal with the question of the confusion, which I referred to in opening, and how it arose.
The House cannot ever allow itself the luxury of blaming officials and Departments for mistakes which lie at the feet of politicians. With respect to the hon. Member for Swansea, West, I found slightly offensive the way in which his party, which was responsible for managing the Fund from 1964 to 1970, should have put the blame once again on the officials. The politicians in charge of

Departments are responsible for administering the political instruments within those Departments. If the questions were not asked, the failure is that of the politicians and not of the Department.

Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is adducing a principle that I would not challenge had he not gone to great lengths in Committee to say that the fault was not with the politicians or the Department but with the industry, which is equally incapable of defending itself in the House.

Mr. Heseltine: That was not the point I was putting. What I said in Committee and what I now want to make clear is that we can only work on the basis of the information with which we are provided. We must ask how the confusion, which I have freely admitted existed, came about. It is a simple confusion. I can explain what happened. When the Department was examining what steps needed to be taken to deal with the situation, the question was asked, not of the British Steel Corporation—that is why the letter quoted by the hon. Member for Swansea, West is not relevant—but of the National Council of Associated Iron Ore Producers, what the Council thought would be the likely acreage of land over the next five years which had to be reclaimed. It was the answer to that question that produced the figures on which many of our earlier debates were conducted. But what the National Council did not say was that there were two groups of acres which had liabilities attached to them but which, in its judgment, did not come within the answer to that question.
It was a confusion—I put it in no other way—that the Council did not say, "There are certain acreages, in fact 442 acres, which will be the subject of liability only if the quarries are closed." Nor did the Council say, "There are another 640 acres which we do not believe have any liability attached to them." That explains why 1,082 acres of land which undoubtedly strictly should have been brought into account were not discussed. This is a totally legitimate confusion, one arising simply because a question was interpreted literally and because the information which was provided in answer to that question was the subject of our


earlier debate. That is where the confusion arose. It was a genuine one.
All this talk of misleading the House or deliberately trying to make a party issue about the pre- or post-nationalisation period is nonsense. It is also irrelevant to the far bigger issue which is involved, which is that there is a major question of dereliction in this industry, as in many other industries, and who is to pay for it? The position of this Government is clear, and this is why I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment. Our position is that dereliction is the responsibility of the industry that caused it. If an industry is nationalised and the private companies are taken over, the liability is taken over at the time of nationalisation. That is the situation in this industry.
There is an urgent problem here. We can see no reason why we should single

out this industry for continued preferential treatment, which would be the very last thing that hon. Members opposite would want to give to all other industries. In other words, this industry has had special treatment since 1951. We are continuing its preferential treatment at the existing level, but in future it will be expected to bear precisely the same responsibility as I believe the House will consider right in respect of industry at large. No further special taxpayer concessions can be made towards the British Steel Corporation in this respect.

For that reason, I have pleasure in asking my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made :—

The House divided : Ayes 155, Noes 139.

Division No. 437.]
AYES
[11.37 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Normanton, Tom


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Awdry Daniel
Havers, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H, K. (Banff)
Heseltine, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Benyon, W.
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Rt Hn. Francis


Biffen, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Holland, Phillip
Rees-Davics, W. R.


Boscawen, Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bray, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Kilfedder, James
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chapman, Sydney
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Simeons, Citarles


Cockeram, Eric
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sproat, lain


Crowder, F. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer



Curran, Charles
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Luce, R. N.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Dykes, Hugh
Mr. Crindle, R. A.
Stokes, John


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carstialton)
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Fisher, Nigel (Surhiton)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fookes, Miss Jarret
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Fowler, Norman
Molyneux, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fox, Marcus
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mudd, David
Wiggin, Jerry




Wilkinson, John
Worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Woodnutt, Mark
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Bernard Weatherill




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Hattersley, Roy
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dormand, J. D.
Loman, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)



McBride, Neil.
Torney, Tom


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon (Rootle)
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E,
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsden, F.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James A. Dunn.

Clause 2

DEDUCTIONS FROM MINING RENTS, ETC. IN RESPECT OF FULL RATE CONTRIBUTIONS

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): We come now to Amendment No. 2. Mr. Heseltine.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be preferable for us to adjourn our proceedings now and continue on another day? In Committee the hon. Gentleman gave a commitment in these terms :
… I should perhaps on Report take the opportunity to make a detailed statement".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 71.]
Obviously, a detailed statement on something as intricate as this Clause will take

some time. In the circumstances, would it not be for the convenience of the House to adjourn consideration now and conclude on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the circumstances, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary could not explain his Bill, and Clause 2 in particular. Perhaps we could have the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was addressing me on a point of order. I have dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams).

Mr. Lawson: I am wondering whether the House has any protection from a Minister who gives an undertaking in Committee which, seemingly, he has no intention to fulfil. Does the House have any protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised no point of order for the Chair. Nothing out of order has been done this evening.

Mr. Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 12, at end insert :
(5) Every order under this section shall be so framed as to secure that the amount which, by virtue of the order, may be deducted from payments under a mining lease or mineral rights order by the lessee or other person concerned in respect of each ton of ironstone extracted under that lease or order is not less than the amount which he was entitled to deduct under section 3(2A) of the Act of 1951 in respect of each ton so extracted in the year ending 31st March, 1971.
I hope that we can make progress with this Amendment. I undertook in Committee that I would move it in order to clarify our intention, which was not provided for in the original draft. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that any changes made in the charges to owners of the land shall not be in the form of reductions but can be only increases in charges. I think that it needs no further explanation than that. It was never our intention that the charges to the owners should be reduced, but it was pointed out that, as the original Bill was drafted, they could have been. To make sure that they cannot be, we propose this Amendment, which has that effect.
In Committee I undertook also to see whether there was anything further which could be said about the relative proportions of the charges to be made to operators and owners under this part of the Bill. I made it clear that I doubted very much whether there would be any further information, since we were dealing with enabling legislation. I pointed out that the legislation provided for consultations with the bodies concerned and that until the Government had the information which at the moment is exclusively in the hands of, for example, the owners of leases, and that until we discovered precisely the terms of those leases, it was not possible to be precise.
In Committee I gave as much information as I could but always within the very careful restriction that the consultations of my right hon. Friend could not be pre-judged.
As I anticipated, it is not possible to give any further information. Although I was only too anxious to look again, in view of the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite, having looked again, there is in the circumstances, no information for me to give save only a repetition of what is clear already, and that is my right hon. Friend's determination that there shall be full consultations with the owners of leases and operators, and that in the light of those consultations the various figures provided for under the relevant Clauses shall be determined and laid before Parliament.

Mr. Alan Williams: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that this behaviour is not good enough. We co-operated with him in Committee, and we got through the remaining Amendment very rapidly, on the understanding that he would give a detailed statement on Report.
I can understand the hon. Gentlemen saying that matters are not finalised. In the short space of time no one would expect the whole process to be finalised. On the other hand, he has not even given us any general information which would be helpful.
I am grateful for the specific Amendment, which achieves a point that we raised in Committee. I am sure that it was not the Government's intention to reduce the share paid by the royalty owners, but that was not clear in the Bill.
However, in Committee, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that it would not be
…difficult to devise an Amendment on a subject which had not been dealt with in this Committee which would be eligible to be called and discussed on Report. Perhaps by seeking to draw attention to some detail of Clause 2, we should be enabled to have the sort of discussion which I gave an assurance would be possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 75.]

Mr. Heseltine: That is true, and we are having such a discussion. But the whole discussion was contingent on there being something further to add. There


is nothing further to add. I could produce the figures and arguments that I put forward in Committee, but they could not be described as new information. I explained that, in the context of enabling legislation, it was unlikely that there would be anything further to add. There is nothing further to add.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may say that there is not anything to add, but we think that there are a lot of things which it should have been possible to add. We are talking about the share of the increased contribution which will be borne by the operators and by the royalty owners.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but lest we should get into difficulty I should remind him that only what is on the Order Paper is in order, not what might appear or what the hon. Gentleman thinks ought to appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We cannot make sense of the Amendment unless it is related to Clause 2. This is a statement regarding the apportioning, or a certain feature that will be applied, regarding the people who are expected to pay. The whole set-up leaves the matter quite without the possibility of understanding unless set in the context of the Clause.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that the Amendment is clear. It is a very narrow Amendment making clear that we cannot amend downwards a certain rate but only upwards.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can deal with the matter now and hasten business. It is not for me to say anything about the merits of the Amendment or whether it is clear to everyone or not. What I have to do is to ensure that the House discusses nothing else but what is actually in the Amendment, and I am bound to administer that rule. Although I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Law-son), there is nothing I can do about it. We must keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In Committee the hon. Gentleman gave an assurance. He said :
It is not for me to say what could be done to ensure that there was a debate on this at the Report stage, but I do not think that I should find it difficult to devise an Amendment on a subject which had not been dealt with in the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 75.]
Since the hon. Gentleman now admits that this is only a narrow Amendment, and since you seem to be saying the same thing, does this not mean that his assurance in Committee is meaningless?

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not to be the judge of that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has addressed a point of order specifically to me, and I cannot possibly be the judge of the argument he has put. All I am here to do is to administer the rules of the House as they are. He will, I am sure, understand when I say that it is to the Amendment and the Amendment alone that any remarks in the debate must be addressed.

Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is here a genuine difficulty which hon. Members encounter, regardless of a particular commitment. On 29th June in Committee we took the hon. Gentleman's assurance at its face value. We felt that he meant it, and I then asked the Chairman of the Committee for his guidance. I made no comment as to the integrity of the Under-Secretary of State ; that I took for granted, and I will say more about that later. What I wanted to know from the Chairman was whether that assurance had any significance for us in the Committee. The Chairman said that he could not, of course, give us guidance. Now we are on Report on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's assurance and find ourselves exactly where we were in Committee. Can hon. Members get any form of guidance which is meaningful on commitments given by Ministers upstairs in Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not the function of the Chair to help in these circumstances. It is the function of the Chair to carry out strictly what it is instructed


to do by Standing Orders, and that is to see that the debate concerns the Amendment on the Order Paper. Of course, if there has been an agreement to group Amendments or Mr. Speaker has agreed to group Amendments, that is another matter. In this case, however, all the Amendments on the Order Paper have been selected for separate discussion. Therefore, the only items which are in order on this Amendment is strictly the substance of the new subsection (5) which is proposed. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, because I understand his difficulty. I am in a difficulty, too. I have to keep the rules of order.

Mr. Williams: I understand that you, like us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been placed in a difficulty by an assurance being given by the Minister which he has not carried out.

12 midnight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not read that into what I said, because that would put the Chair in a wrong position. I am simply saying that the discussion must be confined to the terms of the Amendment. When I say that I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, I mean that I understand his difficulty with me in doing just that. That is not to say that I would express any comment about the merits of what has happened in Committee, or of any of the undertakings which may have been given.

Mr. Williams: I am not surprised, Sir Robert, that you resist the challenge of having to find any alternative interpretation to put on the situation which has arisen. But it does not matter, because there is a way of raising things of importance, even in the context of this narrow Amendment. We were not expecting a narrow Amendment, or the Under-Secretary to hide behind calling it narrow.
It deals with the amount to be deducted in lieu of contributions to the fund. Contributions to the fund last year by operators and owners were about £100,000. The net effect of the contribution change, which is to treble the amount of annual contribution, would have meant that last year the extra charge to operators and royalty owners would have been £200,000.
The maximum that could be contributed by the royalty owners would be half

that. But, on examining the ownerships in more detail, we see that the B.S.C. owns one third of the ironstone. So, on a 50–50 basis the maximum that could be obtained from the royalty owners would be an extra £67,000.
But the hon. Gentleman has rightly said that some royalties are so low that no further deduction of the old 1⅛d. may be possible. There are other cases where the full 50 per cent. deduction may be possible.
How is it intended to range the extra contribution between those who can pay no extra and those who can pay the full 50 per cent.? Is there to be a sliding scale? What criteria are to be observed by the Department? If there is to be a sliding scale, it probably means that the extra charge on the Corporation to meet the concession being made to certain royalty owners may well range between £30,000 and £40,000.
The hon. Gentleman can tell us whether this is the magnitude he has in mind. We are not asking for a detailed outline of how the Bill is to apply to individual leases. The Under-Secretary is having consultations and can surely tell us the basis upon which they are taking place. Apportionment is involved, but so far we have had no advice from the hon. Gentleman.
We do not expect the Minister to give a mass of information. We recognise that that could not be done in the tune which has elapsed since the Committee stage. We expected an attempt to fulfil the obligation, which we took at its face value, and we curtailed discussion on the later stages of the Bill because he assured us that he would move an appropriate Amendment and give us all the information he could.
I have been able to give more information on the problems facing the Government over apportionment than the hon. Gentleman has, and that is an absurd situation.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) was right to say that it was astonishing that he should be able to bring out more facts and figures than the Under-Secretary, that he should show more knowledge than that possessed by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill with all the Department behind him.


With all those resources, the Under-Secretary has given false figures, and on that confusion upon confusion the Bill rests.
My hon. Friend asked a simple question. He said :
I seek a little guidance on the criteria to be applied in apportioning the shares of contributions.
That was something to be expected from someone with a little knowledge. My hon. Friend was modestly asking not for a detailed explanation, but only for a little guidance. However, the hon. Gentleman replied :
This is an important question.
He had the grace to admit that. He added :
If the hon. Member wished me to go into it in detail, I should perhaps on Report take the opportunity to make a detailed statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 29th June, 1971 ; c. 71.]
My hon. Friend did not ask him to go into detail about every lease and every royalty owner and every charity, but to give a little guidance generally. The hon. Gentleman could not then do so, and he still cannot do so.
The hon. Gentleman is escaping under the rules of the House which make it difficult to discuss these matters on Report. He is getting away with a clear inability to explain the principle on which the division is to be made. Apparently, royalty owners are not to be held to their binding contracts, although that will not be true of the British Steel Corporation—it will not matter for just a nationalised industry. Another criterion will be if the person drawing the royalty and paying small sums on the extracted ore cannot afford the amount and would have to borrow from an outside source to pay.
The Minister says that the amount will be :
… not less than the amount which he was entitled to deduct under section 3 (2A) of the Act of 1951 in respect of each ton so exracted in the year ending 31st March 1971.
What is said is that he will not pay less per ton. This is the other side of the penny from the National Coal Board. The royalty owner will not be paying less per ton than he was asked to pay in 1951. I wonder what the value of the £ was then compared with now?

When the hon. Gentleman says that he will not pay less does he mean less in 1971 than in 1951? Does it mean the lessee will pay, in terms of 1951 pennies, or are those pennies scaled up so that some other amount is paid in terms of value? Is it pennies or scaled-up value? If he is paying on the basis of what he would have paid at that time he is paying less.

This Amendment does not properly represent the position and it could be taken to law. I expect the Corporation to take these royalty owners to court and say, "If you are paying on the basis of 1951 prices you are getting a very good deal." We have been deceived, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has practised this trick on us, at this late hour with such an important Bill. He knew that it could not be properly discussed on Report. Another occasion should have been found so that we could go into it more fully. We did not set out to be hostile to this Bill but we are being made hostile.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

VARIATION OF THE STANDARD RATE

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 32, at end insert 'and'.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we take at the same time the following two consequential Amendments :

No. 4, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'increase in the cost of labour and materials' and insert
'change in the cost of labour and materials and of other items relevant to the cost of carrying out any such works as are referred to in section 9(1) of the Act of 1951'.

No. 5, in line 38, leave out from 'enacted)' to end of line 39.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Heseltine: I must say that I view with slight regret the giving of so many Amendments to the Opposition if they take so long to accept them as they have done tonight. [Interruption.] The Amendments were requested by the Opposition in Committee, and I am happy to be able to help them.
The purpose of Clause 3 is to deal with the reasons that must influence my right hon. Friend in changing the standard rate, which is a crucial concept within this legislation. The Bill sets out clearly the factors that my right hon. Friend must take into account in reaching his conclusion.
Broadly, the intention of the Clause is to ensure that my right hon. Friend varies the standard rate, as provided by subsection (2), to take into account, first, the rate which, immediately before the Order is made, is the standard rate for the purposes of Section 9 of the 1951 Act and any increases in the cost of labour and materials since that rate was last determined under that Section.
It was put to me in Committee that subsection (2)(c) should not be permitted to stand, because it also allowed my right hon. Friend to take into account any other factors which he considered to be relevant. This is a very wide piece of drafting. Therefore, the purpose of the three Amendments is to make it clear that "any other factors" is replaced and that the only factor which qualifies as a qualification to paragraph (b) is found in Amendment No. 4, which leaves out the words
increase in the cost of labour and materials
and inserts
change in the cost of labour and materials and of other items relevant to the cost of carrying out any such works as are referred to in section 9(1) of the Act of 1951".
I hope that hon. Members opposite will find this helpful. It is designed to achieve precisely what they asked for in Committee.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary felt it necessary to say that he regretted making so many concessions by way of Amendments. There are only two real Amendments

that we requested in Committee. This set of three Amendments go together to achieve one objective, on which I see no need for great discussion, because we explained the point in Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking it up and, to my mind, meeting it.

The hon. Gentleman must, however, bear in mind that when he referred to lengthy discussion that was in anticipation that the Amendment which appeared in his name was fulfilling an obligation which he voluntarily entered into in Committee to secure a rapid termination of that Committee stage. It is not good enough for him to make remarks about regretting making the Amendments because he is earning unnecessary ill will. We have been fairly restrained in our comments tonight about the fact that we have had to deal with wrong figures and with meaningless assurances, and we have had to do it at a singularly late hour. We could have been far less kind than we have been. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will realise that he is, perhaps, doing himself less than justice in the way he is behaving this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made : No. 4, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'increase in the cost of labour and materials' and insert :
'change in the cost of labour and materials and of other items relevant to the cost of carrying out any such works as are referred to in section 9(1) of the Act of 1951'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 38, leave out from 'enacted)' to end of line 39.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) :—

The House divided : Ayes 44, Noes 1.

Division No. 438.]
AYES
[12.20 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector


Batter, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan-Cities, Rear-Adm.


Bray, Ronald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)




Waddington, David
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Ward, Dame Irene
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Weatharill, Bernard

Mr. Paul Hawkins.




NOES



Oswald, Thomas




TELLERS FOR THE NOES :




Mr. George Lawson and




Mr. Eddie Griffiths.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE (RIVER POLLUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I hesitate to quote poetry to the House at this hour, but some of us learned at school Tennyson's "The Brook" and it is appropriate to quote the following :
I wind about, and in and out,
With here a blossom sailing
And here and there a lusty trout
And here and there a grayling
And here and there a foamy flake
Upon me, as I travel…
There are no lusty trout or grayling in the brooks and rivers in South-East Lancashire. There are plenty of foamy flakes and filthy pollution.
There are times in the House when one could illustrate one's remarks by using films and other aids, but to do justice to this subject I would have to follow Huxley's "Brave New World" and adopt his "smellies" and "feelies".
We heard last week about pollution and the work of the river authorities. Hon. Members had been impressed by those authorities and the magnitude of their task. Probably none of them faces such appalling problems as do the Mersey and the Weaver river authorities, which are responsible for the rivers of South-East Lancashire and the others which flow into the Mersey. The river authorities produce annual reports with maps in various colours to show the condition of rivers. Blue means clean ; yellow, poor or doubtful ; red, bad, and black, very bad. On the map of the rivers of South-East Lancashire a great deal of black ink is needed.
Let me take as an example the River Tame. This river forms part of the boundary of my constituency and separates it from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who is present here tonight. It is classified as "Very bad" for most of its entire length. At Stockport it joins the "poor or doubtful" Goyt to form the "bad" River Mersey. The Tame rises in Yorkshire—and has other problems. It competes with its namesake in the Birmingham area and with the tributaries of the Irwell, the Croal, the Roch, the Irk and the Medlock for the title of the most polluted river. If anyone falls in they are taken to hospital in case they need stomach pumping. As the Manchester Evening News said in an editorial on Saturday :
At least we ought to make the rivers clean enough so that if you fall in it will be safe enough to open your mouth to shout for help.
Yet the Tame Valley could be beautiful. It is true that along parts of it there are industrial buildings, but some of these are old and could be demolished. Other parts are part of a green belt, where only the river is vile. It is an interesting thought that this stretch of land was an industrial belt in the early nineteenth century, with mines and mills and works. Their sites are now hard to trace in the woods which cover the area.
Making the Tame Valley look good is a reasonable proposition. The local authorities together with the Civic Trust are working hard to do that with their Tame Valley Improvement Scheme. I think that all the local authorities in the area are doing something on these lines, and there is the "Green Fingers" policy of the Manchester Corporation, extending to the other valleys and making them reasonable recreation areas.
Making the valley look good is not good enough. There must be a much


more vigorous approach to the cleaning up of the river itself. It may look a hopeless task, but, as the first Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental pollution said,
Vigorous policies to improve rivers produce dramatic results.
And dramatic results are needed here. Hon. Member from other constituencies could have given similar examples of other rivers.
Even the brooks which feed these comparatively small rivers are heavily polluted. There is one in my area which as children we called "Blacky Brook." Black Brook is, in fact, its title, and it deserves it. It is now culverted for much of its length, but this is a policy of respair. My fear is that the condition of these rivers is not generally realised and that their improvement will not get priority because they are not used for drinking water. Indeed, when I tell people in my area that some major rivers provide the water supply they think that I am joking.
I am full of admiration for the various anti-pollution and conservation societies which are making such an impact on public opinion in this field. But there are times when I am reminded of the kind of mother who fusses because her child has got his hands dirty by a muddy pool and does not notice that someone else's child has fallen in.
Let us face the fact that what most parts of the country fear could happen to their rivers if the worst came to the worst has already happened in South-East Lancashire, and indeed in the tidal waters of the Mersey. Last week, we know, the Minister visited the Mersey estuary and part of the Mersey itself, and he will have been shocked by what he saw. I urge him to continue his journey further up the river, because the pollution in the higher reaches is even worse than is it in the Mersey itself. It is not conservation that is needed here but radical change.
Who and what is responsible for the appalling condition of these rivers? First, it is industry. The rivers take in bleach waste from cotton mills and fibre waste from paper mills. This is particularly bad, because it sinks to the river bed, using up oxygen. Oil and chemical waste creates not only pollution but fire

danger. There is thermal pollution from the power stations, steel scale and gas liquid from the steel works, effluent from tar distilleries, dye wastes, even slight lead pollution. Industry uses a vast amount of water in these processes. Paper mills I understand use about 60,000 gallons for each ton of paper produced and breweries use 44 gallons of water for each pint of beer they produce.
To solve the problem, industry must come clean. This is a problem of cash. But surely part of the cost of goods should include adequate provision for the prevention of pollution. The Government could help by giving adequate grants for firms to install anti-pollution equipment and they could help, I think, particularly where firms and local authorities combine for treatment projects.
The other major factor is the quality of the local authorities' sewage disposal works. These local authorities face a difficult and expensive task. The river authority hesitates to prosecute firms and would find it even more difficult to prosecute other public bodies such as local councils. Do the councils in this area get sufficient help from the rate support grant? Do they get enough encouragement from central Government to push on with the necessary schemes? Do they get pressure from central Government to carry on with essential schemes?
We have to stop talking about the battle against pollution in general terms and get down to the sordid details of cleaning up these rivers. Our Lancashire rivers were ruined by the nineteenth century industrialists' slogan,
Where there's muck, there's brass.
Looking at some of the more pleasant rivers in this country and the need for spending on the unpleasant rivers, I can only say, "Where there's brass, there's no muck." I make a plea for special consideration for the rivers of this area.
South-East Lancashire faces the difficulties of a vast industrial area trying to get rid of the worst legacies of the industrial revolution which it led. An urgent requirement in this task of making it a better place in which to live is the rapid improvement of its rivers.
Since applying for the debate I have received letters and essays from pupils in two schools in my constituency—the


Two Trees Secondary School and the Corrie Junior School. They show a welcome awareness of the need for action in cleaning up the rivers. They point out, too, that if a river is bad anyway, local people tend not to care and to dump rubbish—old prams and bicycles, and even motor cars. The children rightly see the need for individual as well as Government effort.
I can best conclude by quoting the end of a letter from 11-year old Lesley Melbourne of Corrie Junior School, who lives near the river Tame. She wrote :
The walk through Denton Woods used to be lovely, but now it is spoilt by the smell of the river. You can't even smell the wild flowers. Can't someone do something about it?".

12.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) has most eloquently expressed, I am sure, the feelings of many of his constituents about the need to clean up the rivers of South-East Lancashire. I agree with him that it is a task which the whole country wishes to see joined in that area.
In reply to his measured and eloquent speech, may I at the outset say a few words about my recent visit to Mersey-side? I think that I may appropriately do that, for most of the rivers of South-East Lancashire end in the Mersey Estuary. Here, as in his area, too, the main pollution comes from industry, from petrol refining and soap and detergent manufacture, chemical and allied industries and food processing, for example. I quite accept that the Mersey Estuary is in a sorry state. I had the opportunity to see many of the industrial effluents from a helicopter and to visit many of the local authority sewerage works. There is a great deal to be done, and I am glad to say that local authorities, on the one hand, and industrialists, on the other, have agreed to join in a joint steering committee which will have the support of my Department in a major clean-up operation which I hope will return the main estuary of the Mersey to a clean condition by the early 1980s. Manifestly, if that is to be done, the upper reaches of the Mersey which pour over the Howley Weir into the estuary must be cleaned as well.
At Howley Weir I had the opportunity of seeing the cumulative flow of all of the tributaries of the Mersey in the South-East Lancashire area, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that the condition of those rivers for the most part is not good. The modal flow of the Mersey, that is, the flow that most commonly occurs, at Howley Weir is over 300 million gallons a day. How polluted this can be may be judged by the fact that the discharges of sewage and trade effluents to the river and its tributaries upstream from this point are also calculated as being very little less than 300 million gallons per day.
The Mersey is made up of flows from the Irk, the Medlock, the Irwell, the Roch, the Croal and the Tame, and numerous less important tributaries. If these names were not by themselves enough to conjure up a picture of the industrial revolution, the names of some of the towns through which they flow would do so—Manchester, Salford, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton and Oldham. At this late hour I am very glad to see present my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). I knew these towns as a youth. They are the places that made this country great, the very foundations of our industrial strength.
Of course, industries will change. The position today is vastly different from the time when King Cotton and King Coal reigned supreme. But South-East Lancashire is still a vastly important industrial area, and even today it is not possible to have major industry without industrial effluents any more than it is possible to have dense populations without large quantities of sewage.
The hon. Member for Gorton, with his felicity for quotation, will no doubt recall one of the earlier descriptions of river pollution in Lancashire in Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England". There the Irk is described as
… a narrow, coal-black, stinking river full of filth and rubbish which it deposits on the more low-lying right bank. In dry weather this bank presents the spectacle of a series of the most revolting blackish-green puddles of slime from the depths of which bubbles of miasmatic gases constantly rise and create a stench which is unbearable …


That is how Engels found this river in the 1840's—well before the passing of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. So river pollution is no new thing.
But there is the difference that in those days no one cared very much about it, and today everyone cares. We have become very much more sensitised to environmental pollution and more determined as a country to clean it up. Today's problems are different from those that Engels described. Cotton and coal still have a large part to play in South-East Lancashire and they still continue to impose pollution loads on the rivers. But the list of discharges to those rivers shows that it is the paper, textile, chemical and allied industries which today are the greater problem. Together, those industries are discharging some 13 million gallons of polluting effluents to the River Irwell daily, 4 million gallons to the Roch, 4½ million gallons to the Tame and 2 million gallons to the Croal.
Polluting discharges from industry, principally the iron and steel, detergent and food processing industries, total 40 million gallons per day to the Manchester Ship Canal. In addition, there is a further 85 million gallons of treated sewage effluent which, I am sorry to say, flows from overloaded sewage disposal works into the Manchester Ship Canal. Into the Tame, a river in which the hon. Member is specially interested, another six sewage disposal works pour each day a further 12 million gallons. So the size of the problem is very great and there is a much greater and more complex load to be dealt with.
Though I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman trout, I can tell him that the Mersey and Weaver River Authority in its latest annual report was able to report to us that a local angling society introduced fish into the lower reaches of the river Croal a year or two ago and the fish have survived the shock. I hope that the anglers have, too. Another local angling society has introduced fish into stretches of the River Irwell near Bury, and when the Rochdale Corporation completes a recently approved £3 million scheme for the reconstruction of its Roch Mill sewage disposal works fish are expected to return to that river, too, for the first time reported since 1835.
These improvements represent a very substantial investment and a great deal of hard work to improve these rivers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention that these rivers shall be improved. For example, on the Croal, Bolton Corporation is spending about £100,000 a year reconstructing its sewerage system. On the Roch, the river is now reported to be clean above Little-borough, and when the recently approved scheme costing £3 million for the reconstruction of Rochdale Corporation's sewage disposal works and associated sewerage work is completed the river is expected to support fishlife.
On the Irk, the river is reported to have been improved this year, largely as a result of the abandonment of the Chad-derton sewage disposal works, as a result of Oldham Council's major reconstruction of its Slacks Valley sewage disposal works a year or two ago—incidentally, at a cost of nearly £½ million. Flows from Chadderton urban district were then transferred to this works and it was this that enabled the unsatisfactory Chadderton works to be abandoned. Oldham Council has further works in hand at an estimated cost of £300,000.
Another scheme I should mention is the reconstruction of Royton sewage disposal works which will take the flows from the Crompton Urban District Council's works which will be abandoned.
Meanwhile, on the Tame there has been a significant improvement in recent years. Saddleworth Urban District Council, which is in the West Riding, has work in hand at an estimated cost of close to £½ million for the extension of its sewage disposal works. Stalybridge and Dukin-field Joint Sewerage Board has recently had my Department's approval for a scheme for the reconstruction of its Bradley Hurst sewage disposal works at an estimated cost of £1½ million.
There are some signs of improvement on the Tame, but the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the enormous amount of work still requiring to be done. I agree wholeheartedly with his reference to the work of the Tame Valley Improvement Scheme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for individual effort as well as effort by government and industry. I commend, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would, the improvement scheme's suggestions to individuals to tidy


messy property, to drop no litter, to help clean up canals, and to help clean up derelict sites. I am sure that ordinary people, young people in particular, are anxious and willing to help. These are some of the practical ways in which they can
As the hon. Gentleman has said, in the end this is a matter for government, whether central or local, and for industry working in collaboration with government. I am advised that as a result of the improvements now being undertaken or shortly to be put under way in the Upper Mersey above Howley Weir a 50 per cent. reduction in the pollution load reaching the Mersey below Howley Weir will result within the next five years. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is substantial. Work to clean up the non-tidal Mersey and its tributaries will continue. Although, as I have said, there have been these impressive improvements, the Government are determined to see this movement accelerated and that is why, the national rate of investment over the past five years of works and sewage disposal being £400 million, the Secretary of State has now increased it in real terms over the next five years to £700 million. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends from that area that South-East Lancashire will get its full share. We are putting on the pressure. We are anxious to see these rivers cleaned up and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said that in the end it is no use just talking about it ; it is a matter of getting down to the practical details in conjunction with the local authority and local industry.
I now want to deal with the three specific points that the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to me about before this debate. His first point was that the improvement of these rivers may not get the priority that is needed because they happen not to be used for drinking purposes. He is quite right in saying that one of the strongest reasons for cleaning up rivers is to fit them for reuse for public water supply purposes. This is a prime consideration in our allocation of capital investment. I can assure him that this is by no means the only consideration. There are, for instance, public health and amenity considerations

as well, and the fact that about £2 million worth of sewage disposal works are now in hand in Saddleworth U.D.C., Stalybridge and Dukinfield shows that the Tame is getting its share of attention.
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's words tonight and I shall have inquiries made to see whether anything further can be done to assist him in his particular problem. I should add that the Weaver River Authority report says :
The significant improvement in recent years in the quality of this river has been maintained.
The hon. Gentleman's second point in his letter was that there is a need for considerable expenditure by Government and by local authorities, and he suggested that special grants might be made available. I accept that there is a need for considerable public expenditure, but I cannot accept that there is a need for special grants in one particular area. The local authorities already get the full benefit of rate support grant and that is a very substantial figure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that wherever a well-worked-out and properly costed scheme is put to my Department it will get approval rapidly.
Neither do I think that there is a case made out for special grants to industry. I see that industry cannot suddenly be asked to change its ways. I accept that there must be carefully phased and costed programming in order that industrialists can make a shift to new methods of dealing with their effluent. But, after all, industry has had the benefit of a relatively cheap means of waste disposal for a long time and it would not be right to adopt a philosophy of paying a man to stop chucking his rubbish in one's garden. Therefore, I think it perfectly proper that, as the Secretary of State said, the polluter ought to pay, but we ought not to drop this whole load upon him without a proper programme for building up both, on the one hand, the local authority sewerage schemes and, on the other, the improvement of industrial effluent. Provided that the improvement in river conditions and the increased anti-pollution measures are carried out on a carefully worked out basis, there is good reason to believe that industry now accepts its responsibility to pay for cleaning up its


effluents in cases where it discharges directly to the water courses.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that some of these rivers in South-East Lancashire are among the worst in the country—I would not dissent from that proposition—and he wanted particlular attention to be paid to the Tame Valley. Perhaps, one day, I shall have the opportunity of seeing the Tame valley with him. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman tonight that his advisory committee's leaflet, the one to which I have referred, has been studied in my Department, and we find it a most useful and encouraging document.
Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said it makes sense not simply to start producing green belts, putting in grass, trees and the rest ; one has to clean up the river at the same time. I give the assurance that it is the Government's intention to clean up all the rivers of this country. It will take a long time. It will take a great deal of money. But the rivers of South-East Lancashire, I assure the hon. Gentleman, will be among those to which we give as much priority as we possibly can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.